The Wong-Fielding meeting on global warming

Finally, the question we’ve all wanted to ask of the people in power: Where’s the evidence?

Senator Fielding holds a crucial vote on the proposed Emissions Trading Legislation. Fielding and four independent scientists faced the Minister for the Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, The Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett, and Professor Will Steffen, director of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University. Read what happened from someone who was there. Joanne Nova

Guest Post by Dr David Evans
17 June 2009

Australia’s Parliament House

Introduction

Australian Senator Steve Fielding met with the Australian Minister of Climate Change, Senator Penny Wong, on 15 June 2009. Senator Fielding was seeking evidence that human emissions of carbon dioxide were the main cause of global warming; Senator Wong presumably wanted Senator Fielding’s vote for the upcoming Emission Trading Scheme legislation.

I was at that meeting, one of four independent scientists invited by Senator Fielding. Many people have asked me what happened, so I am replying to everyone at once like this. These are my impressions of the meeting, with special attention to the way the meeting was conducted and to the arguments used by the alarmists. This account is not primarily a science discussion; nor is it a record of who said what. I took some notes during the meeting, but otherwise it is written from memory over the next three days.

Meetings between official alarmist and skeptical scientists are so rare they are newsworthy in their own right (see, there was no debate). The aim here is to inform the public about what sort of things happen at an event like this. While it is not the aim of this account to persuade anyone of a point of view on the causes of global warming, obviously it will be told from my skeptical viewpoint.

Background

Alarmists avoid debate (especially Al Gore and Stephen Schneider). At the Bali 2007 Conference we challenged Greenpeace to debate but they didn’t even reply, and in 2008 Greenpeace announced an official policy of not debating the causes or merits of climate change. If Greenpeace is so right and moral, what are they afraid of?

When Senator Fielding called last week asking me to come to Canberra to attend this meeting, I figured it was the best offer I was ever likely to get, and accepted.

By the way, Senator Fielding held a five-minute press conference just before the meeting. The camera was trained on the Senator, but you should have seen the looks of contempt and certainty on some (but not all) of the reporters who were asking questions. It was clear what the views of those reporters were. If they are not professional enough to hide their personal views on the job, how accurate are their reports?

The Participants

The Climate Change Minister Penny Wong brought with her the Chief Scientist Professor Penny Sackett, science adviser Professor Will Steffen, three senior members of the Department, and her assistant, making seven on their side.

Senator Fielding is not a skeptic, but was asking questions about whether carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming. The four independent scientists he invited to back him up are all skeptics: presumably he was afraid of being snowed by the Department, which in any case could be relied upon to present the alarmist viewpoint. Senator Fielding prepared a description of the four independent scientists, reproduced here. And a staffer from Senator Fielding’s office also came, making six on our side.

And I use the word “side” literally. We entered the room first and sat on one side of a long table, then they filed in from a different entrance and sat on the other side of the table. Senator Wong came around to our side before we sat down, exchanged pleasantries with Senator Fielding and introduced herself to us, but otherwise we stayed on our respective sides.

Senator Wong, Professor Sackett, and Professor Steffen did all the talking for their side. Professor Sackett is an astronomer and not an expert in climate science; she is the Chief Scientist and cannot be expected to be an expert on everything. Professor Steffen did most of their science talking.

On our side, Fielding asked questions and the four independent scientists asked questions and made points.

We four independent scientists paid our own way to get there, and no one was paying us wages (except that Stewart is presumably paid by his university). Everyone else at the meeting was being paid by the Australian taxpayer.

Funny how skeptics are portrayed in the press as being in the pay of someone. We were the only unpaid people in the room. In fact most skeptic scientists are retired or from different fields, free from the corrupting influence of climate science funding. Many alarmist scientists and bureaucrats would lose their jobs or funding if the belief that carbon emissions were causing global warming died, yet we—not they—are accused of vested interests. Very odd.

The Lecture

The meeting started at 4pm, and from then until 4:36 we were treated to a lecture.

We were given an eleven page handout, and talked to without a chance to ask any questions. The handout and lecture were of excellent quality: the handout was clear and nicely printed, and the verbal delivery was clear, brisk but not too fast—the lecture was intended to be understood. The speakers talked to the handout. The handout contained the standard IPCC arguments and graphics, most of which we independent scientists have all seen before.

First the Chief Scientist spoke on how fluctuations in solar irradiance (the amount of light and heat coming from the sun) hadn’t changed enough to account for more than a small fraction of the recent global warming. We agree, but could not speak so the lecture rolled on for five pages. This is the standard alarmist misdirection about the sun—the sun’s magnetic field and its role in shielding us from cloud-forming cosmic rays is never mentioned. The implication is that the sun can only effect us through irradiance, the irradiance changes are small, so the sun does not play a role in global warming. Presumably the Chief Scientist was responding to a recent remark made by Senator Fielding in New York that perhaps the sun played a role, without realizing that he was referring to its magnetic effects. This part of the lecture was irrelevant, but it was a nice lecture on stuff everyone knew, and it was good to start with a topic in which everyone was in agreement. Running down the clock though.

Next, Professor Will Steffen spoke about rising human emissions of greenhouse gases, the rising trend in air temperature, how the climate models require the warming effects of the rising levels of those greenhouse gases to successfully hindcast the last century’s air temperatures, the heat build-up in the oceans to 2003 and continuing ever upwards through 2007, and sea level rises. Again, standard alarmist stuff. The only new feature was the extra emphasis on the heat build-up in the oceans and the claim that it was continuing unabated through to 2007, and the reduced emphasis on air temperatures (which have been falling slightly for the last seven years). The basic theme was they had thought of everything, it all fitted together, and there was nothing significant that could possibly have been left out. And that human emissions of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide were the cause of global warming, which showed no signs of abating.

All intimidating stuff—if you didn’t know what they omitted, where their models are exaggerating wildly, and that the ocean temperatures have only been measured accurately since 2003 and that they show a slight cooling trend.

It felt like we were ignorant wayward children, now being set straight on the way things really are. Here were the authority figures telling us we were wrong, wrong, wrong. Just shut up and listen. Presumably that was how we were meant to feel. Just for a moment it was tempting to be cowed, take our medicine, and slink out of there without a peep. And if the lecture wasn’t so irrelevant and wrong, it might have worked!

The Questions

Senator Fielding had prepared three questions, reproduced here. They are good sensible questions for a legislator wondering if the pain of carbon emission rationing is worth it. I think it amazing that more legislators have not asked: it is a matter of basic due diligence.

Senator Fielding is in a unique position due to his swing vote in the Senate, but in my opinion he joins Dr Dennis Jensen as one of the two heroes of the Australian Parliament for having the bravery to ask the obvious. And perhaps it is no coincidence: I am pretty sure those two are the only Australian parliamentarians with professional training in the hard physical sciences. Senator Fielding is an engineer; Dr Jensen is a PhD-level physicist.

The ostensible purpose of the meeting was for the Department to address those questions. The rest of the meeting loosely followed the agenda formed by the questions, but it was fairly free flowing and relaxed for much of the time.

The Discussion

I wish someone had been counting interruptions: I am certain that we were interrupted many, many more times than we interrupted. Often you could do more than acknowledge the last point when they interrupted you just as you started to make your own point. For much of the meeting we could hardly get a word in edgeways. Some terrible nonsense got by unchallenged.

All the speakers on the alarmist side frequently rephrased our questions. Often the rephrasing changed the meaning, and often it set up a straw man. It was as if they had to map the question to the nearest Grist talking point. I’m not sure how much of the rephrasing was a way of answering a question they would prefer to answer, and how much was because they genuinely did not understand what point we were making, but there was certainly at least some of both types.

It’s as if they had never before encountered real live competent skeptics or their arguments. Actually, there is a technical reason for this: they probably hadn’t. Only alarmists work in alarmist organizations; they only hire like-minded people. Skeptics who know what they are talking about are booted off alarmist websites (the good arguments are nearly all on the skeptic websites). Like the mainstream media, alarmists suppress and avoid skeptic thought at all cost. This has left alarmists generally very ill informed about either the skeptic arguments or the caliber and numbers of skeptics. It is easy for alarmists never to encounter competent skeptics, and to believe their own political line that the skeptics are just a few misinformed cranks in the pay of big oil.

We pointed out that they hadn’t actually presented any evidence that carbon was the main cause of global warming. No response. Clearly they thought they had, but all they presented was evidence that warming occurred and some models results. Models are theory, not evidence. So: warming, but no evidence that carbon done it. The attempt to frame carbon is a classic stitch up, based mainly on the IPCC’s refusal to consider other suspects.

We pointed out that the models were wrong because they predict a hotspot and there was no hotspot. The amount of warming is equal to the “no-feedback warming” (due to the forcings, which we agreed they had about right for CO2) multiplied by the “feedback factor”. The models assume that the feedback is predominately due to water vapor, and that the feedback factor is about 2.5 – 3. The weakest spot in the IPCC calculations is the effect of feedbacks. This is where they get it seriously wrong, resorting to hand waving and assumptions instead of empirically-validated physics. Naturally they instead draw your attention to the forcing calculations, which are solid.

We showed them the diagram of the model predictions versus the radiosonde observations in my No Evidence paper (page 7). (Warning: horn tooting. That document explains why, despite media impressions, there is no actual evidence that rising carbon dioxide levels are the main cause of global warming. I recommend at least the introduction.) But if there is no hotspot then there is no water vapor feedback, in which case the feedback factor must be less than 1.2, and so the climate models exaggerate predicted temperature rises by at least a factor of two. All IPCC models and calculations of temperature rises rely on a large feedback factor, but the missing hotspot is empirical evidence that it is in fact small.

I thought it appeared from their faces they this was news to them, or at least an unusual argument. Their response was interesting: they replied simply that they had not used models in their arguments at the meeting. There was a moment’s awkward silence, then they moved on. You see, the lecture handout had concluded with the statement “the mid-range amount predicted from the human-driven change in radiative forcing at equilibrium is 1.3 C”, which is a model result. And the lecture had included climate model hindcasts of the last century’s air temperatures with and without the CO2 forcings, and this had been presented to us as evidence. And they relied on model forecasts plenty in the discussion that followed. So if the models are wrong, their conclusions are wrong too.

So why are they not defending the models? Or did they just not want to answer that particular question, and we were bamboozled out of pursuing it? (If so, did the Senators notice the glaring problem?) Perhaps they were being tricky—you can basically do any temperature prediction by the models with a short calculation based on a system diagram with feedbacks. Takes two minutes with a calculator, you don’t actually need to run the models. Perhaps they meant that the quoted results were “calculated by hand”, not “using models”? Surely not? Anyway, we didn’t explore that topic further. I thought it brazen, but crying “rubbish” would have seemed out of keeping with the tone of the meeting.

The other tactic of note was their reliance on ocean temperatures and the deemphasizing of air temperatures. They based the whole empirical part of their case on their claim that ocean temperatures are rising. However this is not a credible claim. We did not dispute it much, because it is a matter of measurement and data and it didn’t seem to me that this meeting should be exploring those narrow technical issues. At one stage William Kininmonth, 45 years a climatologist and head of Australia’s National Climate Centre for 12 years, explained the physics of how this was not credible, but they didn’t seem to notice.

Ocean temperatures have only been measured in any detail or to any depth for five years, by the Argo buoys. And as that article says, “Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory has reported that the Argo system has shown no ocean warming since it started in 2003. “There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant””. The Argo buoys have been recalibrated, and for a while they showed a slight warming trend. The latest result seems to be slight cooling: see the graphs on this Argo site.

The ocean temperature data is sufficient to prove that the IPCC are wrong about the climate (the rise would have to be over a certain amount to confirm the IPCC case). We did not bring this up at the meeting, though we had discussed the Argo ocean temperatures just before the meeting. There is a larger problem: alarmists have all the authority positions in climate science and own (manage) all the datasets. Datasets that contradict the IPCC climate theory have a habit of being recalibrated or otherwise adjusted for technical reasons, and the changes to the datasets always make them more supportive of the IPCC theory. It has happened several times now—but by chance alone you would expect technical adjustments to make the data less supportive of any given position about half the time.

The only other unusual issue was the discussion about Figure 3A in Senator Fielding’s questions. This graph, by Syun Akasofu, shows all the observed global air temperatures, which go back to about 1880. It shows a rising temperature trend as the Earth comes out of the little ice age of the 1600s and 1700s, with alternating warming and cooling periods of about 30 years around the trend. It is discussed here. Human emissions of CO2 were only significant after 1940 (Figures 2 and 3), but the temperature rise had been rising fairly steadily since 1750 or at least 1880—which seemed to interest Senator Wong.

They asked how the straight trend line was drawn; we replied it had been done with a ruler, and that this was simply empirical evidence. The Department’s science adviser replied that they had much more sophisticated methods of drawing trend lines. We were all so impressed!

The meeting finished at 5:26. For political meetings such as this, a meeting of an hour and a half is considered long. I am thankful they gave us a hearing at all, though in the larger scheme of things they should of course be talking to us regularly. (Remember, a trial without a defense is a sham, business without competition is a monopoly, science without debate is propaganda, and government without an opposition is usually a disaster. Who is paid to audit the IPCC? No one, it’s just a few unpaid bloggers.)

Senators Wong and Fielding stayed behind for a few minutes of discussion, but the rest of us left. The alarmists strode out their own exit without any eye contact, handshakes, or any other contact with us. Seemed a bit rude, but perhaps that is how it is done in bureaucracy. So we wandered off back to Senator Fielding’s office.

The Answers

As I recall, these were the answers. The Department is providing written answers soon; they will be interesting to compare.

Question 1. They didn’t answer directly, but the answer seemed to be that air temperatures are to be disregarded and ocean temperatures to be used instead, because so much more heat is stored in the oceans. This seemed a bit like moving the goal posts now that air temperatures are dropping, because we don’t recall the previous predictions of warming being for ocean temperatures only.

They also said in the lecture: “Thus, the air temperature is changing in proportion to carbon emissions”. Plainly it hasn’t over the last ten years, as the graphs attached to Senator Fielding’s question show. However they stressed that this statement applies “at equilibrium”, which means that although it hasn’t fully heated yet they think it will, it is just delayed by the lags in the positive feedbacks (there’s that non-existent water vapor feedback again). Which begs the question of where the heating is hiding at the moment, to which they reply that it is in the warming oceans. But the Argos buoys show that ocean warming is at best slight and is certainly not occurring as fast as the IPCC predicts. They also say that “time periods of 50 years or longer are required to discern long term trends in climate with confidence”, so I suppose we have to wait another 40 years to convince them. On the other hand, the Akasofu graph (Figure 3) shows the warming trends were in place well for at least 60 years before human emissions of CO2 became significant (in 1940).

Question 2. Again, they didn’t answer directly. They felt the ice age warmings depicted in Figure 2b, which are far faster and larger than warming in the last two centuries, weren’t relevant. They felt that recent changes were “dramatic”. They did not comment on the Akasofu graph, which shows the latest warming period to be just another 30 year oscillation in a steady warming trend that has been going for at least 130 years, and that we seem to be tracking into another typical cooling period.

Question 3. Again, we didn’t get a “yes” or a “no” to a question that invited it. I don’t recall we got an answer to this, except perhaps that:

Only very long trends count (but not too long, or they predate significant human carbon emissions from 1940).

They expect to have new climate models soon. (Better tweak the old models so they can hindcast all the behavior they couldn’t predict!)

The NIPCC

Near the end of the meeting Senator Fielding presented Senator Wong and the Chief Scientist with the hefty hard copy of the NIPCC, which is a compendium of the relevant climate science that “demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.”

It is similar in length and complexity to the IPCC Assessment Report 4, but unlike the IPCC report it is easy to read—presumably because it is intended to be understood rather than to intimidate. Presumably Senator Wong and the Chief Scientist cannot now say they weren’t informed of the scientific evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are not the cause of global warming.

The Follow Up

Senator Fielding asked me for a one page overview about the Global and Continental Temperature Change graphic of model hindcasts. Senator Wong had found it important and referred to it as “evidence”. Finding I could only get one word in edgeways, the word I chose was “worthless”. Perhaps a little colorful, but it was accurate. Here is why.

Senator Fielding asked me for a one page overview of the four air temperature datasets, which is here.

Bob Carter wrote an article that has appeared in The Australian newspaper.

See the end of this article for updates.

Closing Observations

It felt more like a political meeting than a science meeting, because there was a lot of posturing, spin, trying to counter the fog of spin and misinformation, and only a little truth-finding. 90% politics, but a bit of science sneaked in.

My overwhelming impressions were of authority and arrogance. I felt they tried to intimidate us into acquiescence—perhaps that is just standard politics and I am not accustomed to it. The arrogant attitude was very strong. Lots of spin, some brazen statements, talking down to us and lecturing, and authoritative statements that they knew it all. They ignored the contrary evidence we presented, and never acknowledged any point, no matter how small, unless we demanded it. Their chief tactic was to appear confident and knowledgeable (in some cases using jargon fairly meaninglessly), and to talk past us. They never answered our specific questions in the terms they were asked, as if denying that the questions were even worthy of discussion. The lords were lecturing us ignorant peasants. And all this from a science team that was describing, literally, a different planet!

Senator Wong was professional, engaged, and pleasant throughout. She ran the meeting well, was personable and relaxed, and appeared to be paying close attention. She expressed no opinions on the science, only on the interaction of the science with policy. She stressed at once stage that current policy was what her party had won the last election with. Clearly she was focused on choosing the right policies. It appeared to me that late in the meeting she seemed to realize that we were credible and were presenting some information that, although contrary to her previous advice, was potentially interesting. I am left wondering whether she noticed the contradictions and weakness of the science case her side presented. She impressed as an intelligent lawyer doing her job properly.

Professor Sackett presented a good briefing on the sun’s irradiance, as noted above. The only jarring note was when, in response to our point that the sun could also influence the earth’s climate through its magnetic field, she expressed the opinion that the astronomy and physics of the situation was all well understood and that they would have noticed by now if there was any such effect. Bearing in mind that the Chief Scientist is not an expert on climate issues, I thought she did her job well.

Senator Fielding stuck to his guns and asked reasonable questions throughout. He wanted his questions answered, and politely persisted. I guess he is used to the pressure and political games. Clearly a very competent and determined person.

For the last two decades the alarmist scientists have been safe in the knowledge that the valid criticisms of their theories and models are just a little bit more complex than the politicians and most of the public are willing to hear. On the other hand, the alarmists have lots of time and media space to get across the complexities of their message. But finally, after the usual warming cycle apparently ran its course by 2002, the public and politicians are noticing that temperatures are not rising as the alarmists said they would—and the public and politicians understand temperatures (and job losses and increased power bills)!

It seems to me that politicians and bureaucrats might be able to effect an elegant dismount from the IPCC’s climate theory as it becomes more and more obvious that it is false. Maybe that positioning will become evident in the next year or two. But some scientists will shrilly defend the CO2 theory of unstoppable global warming, and their jobs, to the bitter end—because they are unlikely to ever find better jobs. (Check out this 20 page list of recipients of Australian Research Council research grants, including $1.9m for David Karoly and almost $2.5m for Matthew England).

Updates

Tuesday 24 June: Senator Fielding announced his position: “Family First senator Steve Fielding has made up his mind on global warming – there’s not enough evidence that it’s real.” And “there’s not enough evidence that it’s real”.

My overwhelming impressions were of authority and arrogance. I felt they tried to intimidate us into acquiescence—perhaps that is just standard politics and I am not accustomed to it. The arrogant attitude was very strong. Lots of spin, some brazen statements, talking down to us and lecturing, and authoritative statements that they knew it all. They ignored the contrary evidence we presented, and never acknowledged any point, no matter how small, unless we demanded it. Their chief tactic was to appear confident and knowledgeable (in some cases using jargon fairly meaninglessly), and to talk past us. They never answered our specific questions in the terms they were asked, as if denying that the questions were even worthy of discussion. The lords were lecturing us ignorant peasants. And all this from a science team that was describing, literally, a different planet!

Ah but David, where do you think the AGW blog trolls get it from? They exhibit exactly the same behaviors here and at other blogs.

Their behavior is proof that theirs is a religious position and not a scientific one. I’m further convinced that the reason they won’t debate in a public forum is that the audience would definitely pick up on their boorishness and that would seriously damage their image and position. I’ll give them credit for recognizing the weakness of their case and their inadequate argumentative skills.

Amazing and frightening; and Will Steffen is out and about spruiking the “it’s much worse than before” nonsense and focused on sea levels which TOPEX show as declining over the last 3 years and ocean heat increasing which is clearly wrong with even the Levitus effort showing a plateauing.

It’s just amazing that this guy can get out there and peddle this rubbish unchallenged.

A most interesting account of an unusual event – scientists discussing different views on a hotly political topic. Here in the UK we appear to have no prominent vocal climate sceptic scientists to have a similar debate, so far. Perhaps if news of this one reaches our mass media (rather unlikely I fear!) then some prominent Uk scientist will come forward.

“It’s as if they had never before encountered real live competent skeptics or their arguments.”

This is to our advantage. We’re like left-handed tennis players – we surprise them because they are not used to playing against us. What’s so telling, is that ‘on the most important scientific threat that faces our planet’ chief scientists and the heads of climate institutes have been so shielded from real debate that they don’t know what’s coming.

You have managed to obtain a debate with the political establishment on this issue not available in the UK.
From this report I sense the alarmist feel scientifically exposed and note the realists (me included) are begining to gain ground with empirical data from a non-compliant IPCC planet.
It is now a political debate with parliamentarians not understanding how science works.
Only time will expose this global fraud, then watch the alarmists of all sorts run for cover!
Well done to all.

David, Congratulations on you meeting with Minister Wong, and your persistence in gathering evidential facts which prove that this high taxing global warming hypothesis, is a political construct yet to be properly addressed by is own master adherents.

hi..exc presentation of the Event.
The False Truth reigns supreme..and despite evidentary data
that reveals failure of a Hypothesis..no movement of the AGW peoples.

It is said a mind works best when open ..but closed mindsets as revealed
in this encounter bode a forbidding future ..for if this representative power elite
believes it..then who are we pissanats to challenge them.

But as Orwell well said once”it a time of Universal Deceit
it is truly a revolutionary act for ONE man to stand up and tell the truth”

Fielding/Jensen are those first few…and let’s hope others follow.

Man does not/never will/never has been in charge of the Weather Machine.

I am a meteorologist of 35 years and Natural Climate Variabilty answers all those who seek the real truth.

Thanks for the link to the SMH story. It’s more of the same bluff and bluster technique. Instead of convincing people with good information, they’re bullying them. If you don’t like what we’re doing and you vote against us, we’ll call an election.

Sure in a democracy they have that option. But the alternative, which is explaining why it’s smart and allowing free debate of the idea is how democracy was meant to run.

I hope the coalition and independents are brave enough to vote against it anyway. A dissolution of the current government might backfire on the ruling Labor Party. I don’t think the climate crisis brigade realize how fast their case will unravel when just a little light is applied. The general public may not understand the science – but they understand bullying, dodging questions, and hiding information.

Thanks Jo, I’ve posted this story to my Facebook page and asked everyone to read it, for their own sake. I have to say I’m appalled at the lack of interest in this story from the mainstream media. I was trained as a journalist in 1989 and it seems to me that all these people do is reproduce media releases without doing an ounce of research. Still no answer from my federal member to my letter, but when I get one I’ll post it (good, bad or indifferent).

I think i would have become rapidly frustrated if i was at such a meeting. All credit to Senator Fielding, youself and your colleagues for a quality response to the alarmists, i would have taken delight to see looks of confusion on their faces when someone actually questioned their quasi-faith with reasoned science.

Thank you for your efforts. I have e-mailed this article to everyone I know in Australia, NZ, Canada and Great Britain. Hopefully we will hear more debate on this issue. Without exchange of ideas and the questioning of results Science becomes just another Pop issue and subject to the whims of the greedy and unscrupulous. Again, thank you.

“… she seemed to realize that we were credible and were presenting some information that, although contrary to her previous advice, was potentially interesting.”

This is the sentence in Dr Evans’s account that struck me as the strangest. I simply can not believe that a politician who has been in Senator Wong’s position for as long as she has, could possibly be ignorant of the existence of powerful and credible viewpoints that are different from her own.

Glenn as a member of the Australian Journalist Association since the early 70s, I can only concur that the present cut and paste journalists are successfully stagnant annuitants in challenging politically contrived dogma.

Steve Schapel, “I simply can not believe that a politician who has been in Senator Wong’s position for as long as she has, could possibly be ignorant of the existence of powerful and credible viewpoints that are different from her own.” — and that is why Penny and the Labour party wont change their view piont. If they did it would be political suicide, the ony chance is the Liberals, notice how they havent commited to the “man made theory” yet?

Steve, remember what Penny Wong and even Penny Sackett are up against. If they have never actively sought out the opposing science, they are reminded nearly every day that ‘climate change is fact’ – look at the SMH article – the last line…”Mr Costello was the rallying point for conservatives opposed to doing anything about climate change”. It’s embedded into the line – there must be ‘climate change’ and there must be ‘something we can do about it’.

The unspoken counter line is “Mr Costello was the rallying point for people who are opposed to making radical changes to our energy sources without some, any, evidence that such drastic action is warranted.”

But no one hears that unless they go looking. That’s why the ‘black hole’ provided by the media has been so unforgivable. The two “Penny’s” had no idea there was a counter argument.

From my relatively clueless view from this anomalously cool and rainy side of the planet, it sounds like the meeting went as well as could be expected. I have watched a Bob Carter talk and exchanged Emails with him, I suspect the “90% politics, but a bit of science” was no surprise to him.

If Senator Wong was “an intelligent lawyer doing her job properly,” then she would be duty-bound to her side of the table, but looking for weaknesses in your side. If she does her job as a senator (US senators don’t why should yours?) she’ll have to balance any newfound uncertainty with the political momentum the warmists have.

8. If rule 7 doesn’t work, break out the riot police and establish martial law, build “Social Cooperation Enhancement” camps, and use the riot police to “invite” the opposition to take up residence in them.

9. If rule 8 doesn’t work, say there are no rules. So you can do whatever you can get away with at public expense. See rule 4 for further details.

10. If rule 9 doesn’t work, say you had good intentions so it really wasn’t your fault. See rules 4 and 5 for further details.

The Government group showed little understanding of the Sun and little interest in improving their understanding of it and its role in the regulation of the Earth’s climate. I would readers of this discussion to consider the account I’ve set out in my Journal of Energy & Environment paper. The reference is:
THE SUN’S ROLE IN REGULATING THE EARTH’S CLIMATE DYNAMICS, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 20 No. 1 2009.
I can email my copy to interested readers: my email address is epitrochoid@hotmail.com.

Here is the Abstract:

ABSTRACT
This paper introduces this thesis:
The Sun-Earth system is electromagnetically, magneto-hydrodynamically and gravitationally coupled, dominated by significant non-linear, non-stationary interactions, which vary over time and throughout the three-dimensional structure of the Earth, its atmosphere and oceans. The essential elements of the Sun-Earth system are the solar dynamo, the heliosphere, the lunisolar tides, the Earth’s inner and outer cores, mantle, crust, magnetosphere, oceans and atmosphere. The Sun-Earth system is non-ergodic (i.e. characterised by continuous change, complexity, disorder, improbability, spontaneity, connectivity and the unexpected). Climate dynamics, therefore, are non-ergodic, with highly variable climatological features at any one time.
A theoretical framework for considering the role of the Sun in relation to the Earth’s climate dynamics is outlined and ways in which the Sun affects climate reviewed. The forcing sources (independent variables) that influence climate processes (dependent variables) are analysed. This theoretical framework shows clearly the interaction effects between and amongst the two classes of variables. These seem to have the greatest effect on climate dynamics.
Climate processes are interconnected and oscillating, yielding variable periodicities. Solar processes, especially when interacting, amplify or dampen these periodicities producing distinctive climatic cycles. As solar and climate processes are non-linear, non-stationary and non-ergodic, appropriate analytic methodologies are necessary to reveal satisfactorily solar/climate relationships.
Here are some essential reading websites for those who wish to gain a better understanding of the Sun and the Sun/climate relationship.

Regarding the Sun and climate, an authoritative site is that of Cornelius de Jager here, http://www.cdejager.com/about . He is one of the founding fathers of modern solar physics having been the foundation editor of the world’s leading solar physics journal, Solar Physics. As you will see, it is necessary to distinguish between the outputs of the Sun’s toroidal (i.e. latitudinal) and poloidal (i.e. longitudinal) magnetic fields. The toroidal one has not contributed much to the warming post 1975, but the poloidal one has. You have to consider the Gleissberg (80 to 100 years), cycle not simply the Schwabe (11 year) and Hale (22 year) cycles. See the papers on his website. Prof de Jager’s co-author, Prof Silvia Duhau, is Prof of Physics at Buenos Aires Uni.

It is not possible to understand the Sun’s role in the regulation of our climate without a thorough understanding of the Sun’s plasma output and vast electromagnetic field. See the uni website of Brian Tinsley here, http://www.utdallas.edu/nsm/physics/faculty/tinsley.html
Prof Tinsley is a distinguished Prof of Physics at Uni of Texas.

According to his summary of his field of science posted on website: About half of the global warming over the past century can be accounted for by changes in the sun and the solar wind, and there are well documented correlations of climate during past millennia with cosmic ray flux changes. These can be understood in terms of electrical interactions between cloud droplets and aerosol particles responding to solar wind-induced changes in atmospheric ionization and in the latitude distribution of Jz,

Another essential factor to understand about how the Sun influences our cliamte is the is the well established phenomenon of the Earth’s rotation. For time periods equal to or greater than a decade, our planet’s rotation drives climate: a decadal rotation decrease (increase) results in planetary cooling (warming). Solar activity, largely plasma and electromagnetic field drives these variations in rotation. Variations in rotation drive the atmospheric/oceanic ossicilations which are the proximal cause of our planet’s climate dynamics.

Then there is the Sun’s gravitational field. Apart from the many ways in which the lunisolar tides contribute to the Earth’s climate dynamics, the 18.6 yr Lunar Nodal Cycle (LNC) induces bistable sinusoidal periodicities in atmospheric pressure, temperature, rainfall and oceanic temperature, level, having maximum effect at higher latitudes, being a major determinant of Arctic climate, and a key driver of European climate.

Apart from all of the above, also read Nicola Scafetta’s presentation to the USA’s EPA. You’ll find it here http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/ under conferences and presentations. He is also a highly accomplished research scientist in the faculty of Physics at Duke University.

A theme I emphasise in the J of E&E paper, and demonstrate from published research, it the significant interaction effects between the different ways in which the Sun affects our climate. This is seen, for example, in the way the Sun influences warming and cooling of the Arctic.

The Government side seems unaware that the way the IPCC was set up ensured that it would not consider adequately or in a disinterested manner the role of the Sun.

The IPCC and Commonwealth agencies ignore all of the above science, which I review in the J of E&E paper. The attitude of the Chief Government Scientist on all of the above is inexplicable.

ABSTRACT
Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.

Brian G. Valentine,
Hopefully our Penny Wong is not as dangerous as John Holdren. ie. Holdren was part of the Stanford Uni eugenic clique, he wrote papers with the Ehrlichs on eugenics and climate alarmism – the Earth is going to freeze etc.
Since taking his position with POTUS Obama, he has spoken on population control and more clmate alarmism – the Earth is going to fry etc.
No we don’t want to swap.

To me, the most interesting question to the warmists should be, “If carbon dioxide in NOT the devil incarnate with respect to climate, what would that do to your job?” Would you lose your job? Could you find another that pays you as well as studying global warming? I think that should be asked of any scientist/politician/lawyer/Al Gore at the start of any discussion.

To me, the most interesting question to the warmists should be, “If carbon dioxide in NOT the devil incarnate with respect to climate, what would that do to your job?” Would you lose your job? Could you find another that pays you as well as studying global warming? I think that should be asked of any scientist/politician/lawyer/Al Gore at the start of any discussion.
P.S. – Sorry, forgot to tell you great post!

Richard, post 26, that’s what I’ve been trying to say for the this last year! Thanks! LOL! I’m being sarcastic but for one to think that the Sun doesn’t affect what goes on with Mother Earth is totally blind in my opinion. What do you think, Brian??? Oh, on the comment about John Holdren, well I’ll bet that He’s so high on top of His beliefs that He can look down and see NO ONE!

I should say that I was not doubting the accuracy of David’s account of the meeting. I guess I was commenting more on Penny Wong’s presumed political skills, in being able to maintain the impression of naivety.

I know she is surrounded by information and advice that is heavily biased towards the AGW faith. I realise also that it is in her political interests at this time to appear to remain devoted.

But a person doesn’t become a senior member of Australia’s government by being naive. She *must* have received letters or other direct communications from credible sceptics, challenging her viewpoint or statements. She *must* have had sceptics at public meetings address her with challenging questions. She *must* have been advised of the existence of the heretical rationalists. She *must* have looked up at least some rudimentary information about the conference that has had such an encouraging impact on Senator Fielding, the man she is courting and was about to meet. She *must* have at least heard of Bob Carter. She *must* have somehow/somewhere heard a squeek about the popularity of Ian Plimer’s book. She *must* have been briefed on the strength of the sceptics’ submissions to the ETS Select Committee across the Tasman. She *must* have taken an interest, in preparation for her meeting, in the fact that one of the attendees is the former head of the National Climate Centre. Etc, etc, etc. Surely?

I can’t understand why Evans didn’t just smack them between the eyes with the truth. I had a discussion with an alarmist high school science teacher last week. I started off by referring to AGW as a cult based on arrogance and junk science trying to shove a social agenda down societies throat without the nicety of an election. Once he stopped sputtering he tried to use the authority position, I mentioned that he then had no right to question my appraisal of his car. He stopped that tactic, and foolishly mentioned the Mann graph, when I asked what happened to the observational data comprising more than a third of the time period represented by the graph he became catatonic briefly, then professed ignorance, this seemed to easy so when I mentioned the cattle grazing in Greenland, Scottish Wine (yech), and the cause of the French Revolution, he brought up the ice core data. I think you can guess the way the rest of this went. He ended with the bogus assertion of the precautionary principle. When I mentioned that his doomsday scenario claims simply showed that we were already screwed if correct so why bother, he said he was pleased I was so interested and but had to run. While I’m not stupid, I’m not a scientist, but he has been teaching science for over 20 years, is it possible that he is that ill informed, or just too lazy to do the research? It all seemed to easy to me. My 30 years in politics taught me to go on the offensive with pompous arrogant folks before they get a chance to use their bully boy tactics and set the tone and agenda. Because I’m geneticly obnoxious,(Irish), I have no trouble turning the tables on intellectual bullies. I think it’s a tactic we need to learn in this argument. Clearly science is not the successful debating point. We need to address this in a manner that the average voter understands. Where I grew up, Joe six pack was an still is the standard for the neighborhood, and he votes. Clearly politics is going to decide this, so we need to move into the political arena and help candidates that will stand with us against the elitists of the AGW cult and their liberal lemming like followers.

Dr Evans is Ms Nova’s husband, ergo the contributor’s fees for his work on this site must be low. ha –

Speaking of spouses:

My wife is a pro landscaper, has been for 40 years. She digs outside all seasons, observes everything and

She heard Jim Hansen say that “observant people will notice climate change happening over the years.”

Louisa’s response: “He has no CLUE what he is talking about. In 40 years I see annual variation in weather, occasional migrant birds, insects, etc – but over the years, and I have been out of doors nearly all the time for 40 years, this “climate” hasn’t changed at all and I have observed everything from surface to two meters under the soil in all seasons.”

HA – Jim Hansen can’t sell his slop to people who actually work for a living

“If you don’t like what we’re doing and you vote against us, we’ll call an election.”

Mr K Rudd is scared that if he introduces the ETS before an election people will quickly realise that it is costing them over $4500 pa. That’s why he deferred the introduction until after the next scheduled election.

If they do call a double-dissolution because they they can’t get their Carbon Dioxide Pollution Reduction scheme bill passed, you can bet the election issue will be the economy.

If they win an election fought on an economic scheme, they will say they have a mandate on CPRS/ETS. Malcolm Turnbull is also committed to introducing an ETS.

Senator Wong may have given the impression that she is unaware of solid science that contradicts the IPCC material. Over the past 12 months, via our local MHR, I have asked twice for her explanation, in terms of basic laws of physics/chemistry, of the link between more CO2 and global warming/climate change. Her replies relied on IPCC and consensus of scientists. During this process when presented with Dr John L Nicol’s analysis of the topic she fell back on the “not peer reviewed” defence. I suspect Senator Wong is caught between ALP dogma and solid science…a very painful position.

1. Re: ocean vs air temperatures – Enhanced IR absorption by GHGs is entirely an atmospheric effect. Any oceanic warming must follow as a consequence of atmospheric warming. The idea of a cessation of atmospheric GH warming because the heat is somehow being taken up by the ocean while the atmosphere itself cools, is palpable nonsense and all the more so when the ocean itself is not warming.
2. Re: recent “dramatic” changes – The only thing dramatic here is their own claims. We have a very messy and imprecise mass of global surface temperature records which indicate a highly uncertain and erratic 0.7°C of warming over the past century. Natural forcings, anthropogenic GHG effects, internal climatic cycles and instabilities, UHI, and measurement errors are all involved in unknown portions of this 0.7°C. The correlation of temperature fluctuations with GHG levels is very low.
The AGW hypothesis attributes the entire 0.7°C solely to an enhanced GH effect dismisses all other effects. It does so on the basis of outputs from immensely complex models incorporating numerous estimates, assumptions and simplifications. The different models all give different outcomes. None can accurately reproduce the observed record. None predicted the current cooling. All predict a pronounced low latitude mid-tropospheric warming as a signature effect of AGW, however, this effect cannot be found to exist.
The alternative hypothesis is that actual warming is smaller than indicated by the surface instrumental record, that all the above mentioned influences have played a contributing role, that the AGW effect is too small to be detected amidst the natural noise and that it is too weak to be of any concern now or within the limits of economically accessible fossil fuel reserves.
The latter hypothesis is simple and consistent with all available information. The rule of Occam’s razor dictates its preference until a simpler explanation or conflicting evidence is presented.
3. Re: only long trends count – Enhanced IR absorption by GHGs is an immediate physical effect. It cannot be deferred or diverted. If it is occurring, the atmosphere must become warmer. On the other hand, if recent cooling is to be accepted as due simply to some unexplained natural variability in climate temporarily over riding the GHG effect, then one must also accept that the preceding warming of similar rate and magnitude must equally be due to such natural variability,

She stressed at once stage that current policy was what her party had won the last election with.

Both sides of politics seem to underestimate how unpopular the recent oil wars, and Authoritarianism have been. Labor’s Green support was mainly from areas that tended to favour the ALP anyhow, and I suggest that a lot of the Green votes are mostly protest votes coming from people frustrated with the long years of Kim Beazley and his low-profile strategy of not being bothered with doing any of the things that opposition parties should be doing. Howard lost the election, Labor didn’t win it.

But finally, after the usual warming cycle apparently ran its course by 2002, the public and politicians are noticing that temperatures are not rising as the alarmists said they would—and the public and politicians understand temperatures!

That’s about the size of it. People think on the decade time scale so 10 years of warming is warming forever, and 10 years of cooling is cooling forever. So 30 years of warming is more than forever!

The Commonwealth Government should invite him over to run workshops for CSIRO and BoM not only on in relation to the IPCC’s models, but also about time series analysis (workshops which Treasury should attend) and water management (workshops which State Government authorities should attend). Indeed, If the Government was serious about “evidence-based policy”, it would invite Demetris over for special briefings of Ministers Wong and Garret and the Government Scientist. Demetris is, after all, recognised by the scientific community as a global authority in all these areas – that’s part of the reason why the hydrological science community awarded him the Henery Darcy Medal in April this year.

Regarding the role of the Sun, etc: here is another very useful paper, by Gerald E Marsh “Climate Change: The Sun’s Role” recently from the Argonne National Laboratory in the US. Here is the Abstract:

Abstract. The sun’s role in the earth’s recent warming remains controversial even though there is a good deal of evidence to support the thesis that solar variations are a very significant factor in driving climate change both currently and in the past. This précis lays out the background and data needed to understand the basic scientific argument behind the contention that variations in solar output have a significant impact on current changes in climate. It also offers a simple, phenomenological approach for estimating the actual—as opposed to model dependent—magnitude of the sun’s influence on climate.

Invading Iraq will be quick and easy, over by Christmas. Our troops will never get bogged down. Artificially low central bank interest rates would never lead to an asset bubble. Government deficit does not cause inflation.

2. If you don’t talk about it, it isn’t happening.

Our side does not torture. Our troops do not rape and murder. Oil is not running out, and this war is not about oil.

3. If you don’t identify it, it didn’t happen.

Errr, say “few bad apples” ten times. Did we say, “weapons of mass destruction” ? Well they were there, you just missed them, anyhow precautionary principle, had to do it.

4. If the first three rules don’t work, change what you call it, and you will change what it is.

How about “enhanced interrogation” ?

In Vietnam they said, “this is not war, it’s police action.”

5. If rule 4 doesn’t work, accuse any convenient person or group not agreeing with you of causing it.

The terrorists made me do it! Bill Clinton’s fault I say!

6. Guess. After all, no one can really know what will work and we had to do something.

We fight them over there so we can repress the population over here, or something, I forget. Fool me once, errr you can’t fool me again.

8. If rule 7 doesn’t work, break out the riot police and establish martial law, build “Social Cooperation Enhancement” camps, and use the riot police to “invite” the opposition to take up residence in them.

Homeland Security, FEMA.

9. If rule 8 doesn’t work, say there are no rules. So you can do whatever you can get away with at public expense. See rule 4 for further details.

911 changes everything, none of the old rules apply anymore.

10. If rule 9 doesn’t work, say you had good intentions so it really wasn’t your fault. See rules 4 and 5 for further details.

You know George Bush wasn’t such a bad guy, he loved his country. Taught them a valuable lesson in not voting for bloody minded fools too.

The really interesting thing is just how left wing the Republican party turned out to be

It was my impression that Dr David Evans is an engineer, not a scientist. Although he worked at the AGO, it was in the capacity as a software engineer, on carbon trading models, and nothing to do with the actual science of climate.

[...] you… they dont deny that the it has cooled since 98… they now go by the temp of the ocean… The Wong-Fielding Meeting On Global Warming | JoNova As I recall, these were the answers. The Department is providing written answers soon; they will [...]

All just windows dressing and slick propaganda by the faux sceptics and a a pretend response from the climate change minister as well.

The sceptics have an easy ride – the backroom boys and girls – the serious climate scientists in CSIRO and BoM are rarely let off the leash to have a serious debate with the sceptics.

Alas such a debate would take days to do properly and of course there are problems with both sides of the argument. The issue of decadal variability is much more complex than has been portrayed by both sides. However,if the public think they’ve got good value from the sceptics – wake up ! They’re just spoiling.

But frankly I wouldn’t trust anyone in that meeting room.

As for the ETS – not without the rest of the world coming along thanks. And new nuclear – why not.

I have heard about your courageous efforts to make a rational assessment of the climate change question.

I am an expatriate Australian. I have been living in New Zealand since 1975. If you have time, you may be interested in my story.

There was only one reason for moving to New Zealand. I had been convinced by the predictions of The Club of Rome, and the writings of Paul Ehrlich and others, that there was a planetary emergency on, as a result of over-population, coupled with the imminent exhaustion of fossil fuels. We “knew” that society’s reliance on technology would soon be no longer possible, whether we liked it or not. And we knew that it was imperative to very quickly work to develop alternative ways of survival. At the time, New Zealand offered greater opportunities to explore and develop these alternative lifestyles.

I am not an armchair commentator. My wife and I put action to our beliefs, left behind our families and friends and security, and embarked on a journey fueled by a passion to save the world.

Do you know what? It took me over 10 years to realise that the foundation behind our dream was false. Do I regret it? Absolutely not. It was an incredible journey. Our children were born without medical involvement, because we had to learn self-reliance. We developed high degrees of skill in animal husbandry, subsistence gardening, bee-keeping, homestead food processing, hand-crafts, bartering relationships, and many other things. We lived for a number of years with heating and cooking by wood, and almost reached the point of self-sufficiency in firewood. We worked hard at developing cooperative social networks.

On the other hand, we also learned how incredibly difficult it is to achieve what we aimed at, and overall we fell far short of our initial goals.

It now seems apparent to me that the current thrust to urgency to deal with a planetary emergency of global warming caused by man-made carbon dioxide, is rooted in the same baseline philosophy that was behind my migration to New Zealand. I now see that it was wrong then, and it is wrong now. Science was used to support the ideology, but the essence was ideological, and the science was faulty.

I confess that I am presently out of touch with Australian politics. But I have been moved by the story of your commitment to seek objective information and to avoid acting rashly based on ideology. I want to extend my heartfelt gratitude, and my very best wishes in your quest.

It was my impression that Dr David Evans is an engineer, not a scientist. Although he worked at the AGO, it was in the capacity as a software engineer, on carbon trading models, and nothing to do with the actual science of climate.

Another attempt to discredit the opposition with an ad hominem attack. Pathetic.

Are you aware that the Chairman of the IPCC isn’t a scientist actually involved in the study of climate either? He’s an Economist and Industrial Engineer. I guess that should disqualify him talking about climate too, eh?

Richard Mackeys reply to Steve schapel was picked up by the Spam filter. I’ve released it, See #44. . Also I think Geoff Brown #40 and Allen C #31. Apologies to all.

Just so you know – We’ve got thousands of comments but the Real comment to Spam ratio is about 50:50. So the fight to stop the russian investment alerts, viagra ads, drugs, forex trading houses means if you put more than 5 links in Askimet will hold that comment (and sometimes Askimet will hold your comment even if you don’t). It’s worth emailling me so I can set your message free… Or you can split up your message and try again, sometimes it will let you post it in parts. No, it doesn’t quite make sense, and it doesn’t necessarily help to be registered as a user (darn) mainly because all the video-pharmacy-agents register automatically anyway.

Senator Penny Wong says in SMH 19/6/2009 that “Discussion on the link between global warming and carbon pollution began in 1890. Despite all these warnings we have accelerated carbon pollution that is causing climate change.” There is yet to be a scientific relationship, no matter how complex. linking climate change with carbon consumption. Many forms of carbon consumption are polluting, that is a fact and attracts many supporters to the global warming clause through ignorance.

The developed world would agree that we need to progressively decouple from carbon usage, a very challenging task which has nothing to do with climate. There are better ways of influencing energy change than by Emission Control Legislation involving a virtual market in a 1t units of CO2. The Garnaut report talks about the progressive establishment of an international market for this virtual commodity which will improve the climate. This will sooner than later lead to the inevitable range of derivatives, short selling, put and call options and sophisticated financially engineered products which will in due course bear the imprimaturs of respected rating agencies. This will all be in the name of climate change and the environment. One has only to look at the volatility of the oil market in the last two years to picture the next economic bubble with carbon units traded alongside barrels of oil in what could well shame the sub-prime mortgage fiasco. We have reached a turning point and could well be on the way to creating a whole new activity around climate change, when in reality what we are seeking to do is reduce our dependence on carbon fuels for economic and sustainability reasons. There are simpler and easier to understand ways of changing our energy mix which can be readily measured, even if carbon cannot. Renewable Energy Certificates were introduced 9 years ago in 2000 and have been the catalyst for the expansion in wind power generation which would not have been competitive without this legislation. There is great scope for innovative legislation to move the energy mix in the way governments want without this overly complex piece of legislation. Admit you have got it wrong and go back to the drawing board.

“Another attempt to discredit the opposition with an ad hominem attack. Pathetic.

Are you aware that the Chairman of the IPCC isn’t a scientist actually involved in the study of climate either? He’s an Economist and Industrial Engineer. I guess that should disqualify him talking about climate too, eh?”

He is making a claim, I am disputing it. Evans is not a scientist.

“I was at that meeting, one of four independent scientists invited by Senator Fielding.”

The Chairman of the IPCC isn’t claiming he is a scientist, the IPCC does not do research, it takes research and reports on it.

Bugs! Where have you been? We’ve missed the illogical ad hominem line of thinking…

Bugs’ talent and dedication is digging down to catch … plastic rabbits. Whether Evans’ is a scientist matters not-in-the-slightest to the Planetary Climate. But since we claimed he was a scientist, Bugs: what part of a PhD from Stanford Uni in Fourier Analysis is ‘unscientific’?

And just in case you think Fourier was an art movement, here’s the full list.
Ph.D.(E.E)., M.S.(E.E.), M.S.(Stats) [Standford], plus a B.E (E.E.), M.A., B. Sc. (Sydney Uni)

As it happens David often doesn’t use the term ‘scientist’ about himself – he prefers engineer or mathematician. (Scientists are too theoretical: Not disciplined enough for him.)

If David doesn’t qualify, it’s only because your definition of ‘scientist’ means someone who unquestioningly swallows decrees from unelected international committees, and ‘trade’ associations.

In the end, the only status David needed to ask his elected rep a question was “Australian Citizen.”

And Steve #23,
I thought it was significant that Penny Wong stayed out of the science. She’s there because the ALP were elected with this topic (they were) – which is a fair answer. It’s what she didn’t say that was telling… evidently no pronunciations of how we simply have to act now…of why we can’t afford to wait…

Yes, you would hope that a Minister would research their own field, but it’s not that hard to imagine that rather than google searching for counter arguments – she was briefed by her own staff – including people like Will Steffan. That’s what made this meeting so unusual. It was possibly the first chance she’d had to see both groups operate in the same room. It matters. Unless you get the two sides together and both get the chance to reply to the replies, it’s very hard for someone to see which side makes more sense.

It’s not impossible to imagine that surrounded by ‘staffers’ who were put there because they were AGW ‘experts’ (they know the littany), she would have little access to reasonable views from outside.

Quite possibly, if the meeting raised doubts, the entourage would be working hard to ‘rephrase’ or ‘rewrite’ the event.

It would be the mark of a real leader if Wong decided to seek out an adviser with a counter view, and add that person to her team. Then at the very least, she would never be caught off-guard. At the most, she might save herself the ignominity from presiding over the only ministry based entirely on a hoax.

I am appalled at how this meeting was conducted. It constantly amazes me how the standard of evidence is non-existent. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE!

I don’t think we even stand a chance. Most people in the public don’t even know or care about this issue. The media strangely ignore skeptics and constantly perpetuate alarmism. Schools are indoctrinating children with Co2 = Global Warming propoganda, which is creating a generation of “believers” that won’t know any better. Science is now officially the new religion folks!

I have lost all hope that anything can be done to reverse the madness. Time for miracles.

Interesting that Fielding says he is not a skeptic but keeps an open mind and raises these three awkward questions. By my definition, someone who maintains an open mind and asks awkward questions is a skeptic.

Unfortunatley the MSM and the alarmists have tried to redefine the word.

DeanTurner, I am not so pessimistic as you. I think that more and more people are looking into global warming and realising that it is built on nothing. Skepticism is growing, as shown by some recent opinion polls in the US at least, and increasing numbers of skeptic blogs like this one and WUWT and CA are making an impact.
Amazingly, even the BBC has launched a blog that is daring to question the alarmist position, seehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/

“I’m not a scientist, but he has been teaching science for over 20 years, is it possible that he is that ill informed, or just too lazy to do the research? It all seemed to easy to me.”

Fast Eddy, As a high school science teacher, I can confidently tell you that many science teachers are ill-informed, lazy, and just plain not-too-bright. Some, however are brilliant. Just like in any other profession, incompetence and mediocrity are the norm.

Tel: The really interesting thing is just how left wing the Republican party turned out to be

Agreed. We did not leave the Republican party, the Republican party left us. I have watched them in great dismay for over a half century as they struggled to be better Democrats than the Democrats. All in a hopeless attempt to be loved by them. Why they want to be loved by a bunch of power-and-control thugs, I don’t know. There is no practical difference between. The issue of individual rights is not a consideration. Its who is to be sacrificed to whom, for what reason, how fast, and how much but its sacrifice always and forever.

What we need are politicians who understand to their core that they do not have the right to violate rights any more than any other citizen. The ONLY legitimate function of government is to intervene if and only if one party violates the rights of another. In all other respects, the government MUST stand aside and NOT act against a citizen. If it does, it violates individual rights and becomes worse than a common thug because it has violated its ONLY legitimate reason to exist.

This was a very interesting post by David Evans. However, I wonder if he has misinterpreted a couple of things. His description of the responses to Fielding’s group by both Penny Wong and her people could be due to other reasons.

The first one is that over the past year Penny Wong has had a number of special interest groups come and fiercely lobby her and her people over the ETS and related matters and try and sway things their way. Now, in this post David Evans emphasises his independence but Penny Wong may not see it that way given the fierce lobbying she and her people have been subject to i.e. she might’ve been thinking, “so what’s the difference between these guys and such and such”. Thats one thing.

The second is Fielding. Fielding has ‘form’ in the area of trying to extract stuff out of the government e.g. he was successful with the Howard government e.g. by using the vote over compulsory student union fees to extract stuff but the Rudd government is a harder one for him to crack and climate change is far far bigger than other things he has tried things on. So let me ask the question, ‘why does David Evans believe Fielding to be honest’? Bear with me. For example, why did Fielding need to go all the way to the US when he could’ve talked to the four people he took with him to the meeting plus request briefings from CSIRO people etc, etc. Its odd and notice how he always emphasises in interviews his big step of going to the US as though that is something in itself.

It makes me suspect that he had already made his mind up even before going to the US, especially from reading and hearing the comments he made in interviews. I wonder if he was looking for a big fig leaf to use to vote against the ETS i.e. he is looking for a way to palm of responsibility and perhaps david evans and his colleagues for a part of that process. I’m sure that Fielding shares the same viewpoint on AGW but I wonder if Fielding has believed this viewpoint longer than he has let on.

Don’t forget Wong has had a lot more interaction with Fielding than the four people with him at the meeting (excluding the staffer). So has David Evans misinterpreted the various actions and words of Wong and her colleagues at the meeting and instead these were a response to Fielding and his agenda.

Now this is of course only my opinion but in conclusion were David Evans and his colleagues duped?

Thank you very much for that excellent information. While I don’t have “many months” to devote to studying the science in depth, I have had a look through the material you referred us to, and it clearly adds to the rational understanding of the climate.

Coming from a different field of junk science, ETS seems to mean something other than what I’m used to. Sorry if I missed it, but can someone define it for me?

Ha, I probably could have been more patient or searched another way, but have found out that one much make a comment if one desires to be notified of followup comments. Guess that qualifies as laziness on 2 levels.

For those who have read IPCC’s Assessment Reports, it comes as no surprise that Koutsoyiannis’s conclusions are actually contained in the Assessment Reports themselves – at least until the Third, TAR.

But the TAR must be carefully read to understand what the author’s themselves have concluded, and by no means, do they speak as directly about it as Koutsoyiannis does.

The Summaries for Policy Makers of course, bear no relation to the actual conclusions of the TAR – and that, of couse, is no accident.

What distinguishes the Fourth AR/4 from the TAR is, ambiguities and equivocation has been mostly removed from the Assessment Reports, leaving other hypotheses of Climate Change pretty much limited or untenable.

Up until AR/4 I have always claimed, that the most reliable source of refutation of the Summary for Policy Makers to the Third Assessment Reports is the TAR itself

Readers of this blog may also interested to read the item by David Deming
“Historic parallels in our time: the killing of cattle – vs – carbon”.
It can currently be found over at WUWT.
The comments arising are also interesting.

At the start of the AGW debate, David Deming wrote a paper that was interpreted by IPCC’s Jonathan Overpeck as being pro AGW. He was contacted to say that to make their case they had to get rid of the MWP. Subsequently, Mann Bradley and Hughes produced the “hockey stick” graph.

I contacted Dr Deming to confirm this and got this reply:

“I don’t have a copy of the email in question.

When I received it, around 1995, global warming was
not the contentious issue it is today. So, although
I thought the message was astounding, I did not
bother to archive a copy.

Therefore, I am only 99 percent certain of the
identity of the person in question.

I have told people orally what my recollection is.

But I have never given the name in writing, because
I cannot be absolutely certain.

In any event, the real significance is not the identity
of an individual, but that science is being twisted and
perverted to serve an ideology.

The switch from atmosphere temperatures to ocean heat content is a clever tactic. For one thing, it is justifiable: Roger Pielke snr has been saying this should be a superior metric for a long time. On the other hand, it is a blank slate: there is no good long term record of ocean heat content, and even recent results are open to interpretation. The instruments drift around the ocean, so the location mix changes, and the results are complex, with temperatures at a great range of depths being reported and integrated.

This means the data are wide open to proxying, modelling, and impenetrable Mannian statistics, with adjustment and readjustment ad nauseam. Whereas the warmists have nearly run out of options for adjusting the satellite and surface records to preserve the warming trend, ocean heat content still has heaps of potential for fiddling. Expect years of “worse than previously thought” media releases.

I draw readers’ attention to the conclusions of the second and most recent paper of Prof Koutsoyiannis and his team which documents the appalling failures of the GCM climate models. The paper, released in April 2009, is Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis, A. Christofides, and N. Mamassis, “Credibility of climate predictions revisited”, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2009, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 11, Vienna, 611, European Geosciences Union, 2009.

It is a companion piece to his 2008 paper (Koutsoyiannis et al., “On the credibility of climate predictions”, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008). In this paper, the credibility of climate predictions was assessed based on comparisons with long series of observations. Extending this research, which compared the outputs of various climatic models to temperature and precipitation observations from 8 stations around the globe, Prof Koutsoyiannis and his team test the performance of climate models at over 50 additional stations. Furthermore, they make comparisons at a large sub-continental spatial scale after integrating modelled and observed series.

Note that the Government’s CPRS Bill and the ETS rely on the GCM models. Should not the Government’s scientific advisers and Dr Parkinson of the Department of Climate Change bring Prof Koustsoyiannis’ findings to the attention of the Government? Maybe Senator Fielding could read these papers into Hansard. Maybe he could read the just the main findings into Hansard and table the papers (if, that is, the Government will allow them to be tabled) and require that the Government respond fully to their findings.

Here are the conclusions from his 2009 paper:

20. Conclusions
The performance of the models at local scale at 55 stations worldwide (in addition to the 8 stations used in Koutsoyiannis et al., 2008) is poor regarding all statistical indicators at the seasonal, annual and climatic time scales. In most cases the observed variability metrics (standard deviation and Hurst coefficient) are underestimated.

• The performance of the models (both the TAR and AR4 ones) at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is even worse.
• None of the examined models reproduces the over year fluctuations of the areal temperature of USA (gradual increase before 1940, falling trend until the early 1970s, slight upward trend thereafter); most overestimate the annual mean (by up to 4°C) and predict a rise more intense than reality during the later 20th century.
• On the climatic scale, the model whose results for temperature are closest to reality (PCM 20C3M) has an efficiency of 0.05, virtually equivalent to an elementary prediction based on the historical mean; its predictive capacity against other indicators (e.g. maximum and minimum monthly temperature) is worse.
• The predictive capacity of GCMs against the areal precipitation is even poorer (overestimation by about 100 to 300 mm). All efficiency values at all time scales are strongly negative, while correlations vary from negative to slightly positive.
• Contrary to the common practice of climate modellers and IPCC, here comparisons are made in terms of actual values and not departures from means (“anomalies”).

The enormous differences from reality (up to 6°C in minimum temperature and 300 mm in annual precipitation) would have been concealed if departures from mean had been taken.

Could models, which consistently err by several degrees in the 20th century, be trusted for their future predictions of decadal trends that are much lower than this error?

“• Contrary to the common practice of climate modellers and IPCC, here comparisons are made in terms of actual values and not departures from means (“anomalies”).

The enormous differences from reality (up to 6°C in minimum temperature and 300 mm in annual precipitation) would have been concealed if departures from mean had been taken.”

Using actual temperatures instead of anomolies is meaningless, the models only make sense if anomolies are used since they don’t pretend to be able to predict the year to year periodic cycles such as the AMO.

Hadley thinks the new breed of supercomputers will be able to start to do such modelling, but these are only just being implemented. Koutsiannas et al have just wasted their time disproving something that has never been claimed.

1. To model oscillations, the underlying phenomena must be understood – which they are not. The biggest computer in the Universe cannot model something if there is [little or no] understanding of how the thing works,

2. OK – suppose data from the anomalies has been used. Then the output is the tautologic “real data = real data.”

Even in the years for which there are (no known) major climate cycles in either Hemisphere, the departures of predictions from historical temperatures are (significant to unacceptable) without other corrections.

As I have mentioned before, if “feedback” are adjusted to make historical temperatures come out right (since 1940, say) – then rainfall patterns are mostly all wrong.

Given that prediction of major climate oscillations is guesswork at best for many cycles, the projections of climate for the future could be expected to be no better than those predictions in the first place.

What does this do? Turns a guess into another guess, but the secong guess is advertised to be more reliable than the first!

>QUESTION 1.
>Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over >the same period (see Fig. 1)?
>If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for >dangerous levels of warming?

My answer would be, take an introductory course in Statistics.

Actually, if you compute the regression since 1998, the Hadley data shows plateau (not cooling) and the Nasa Gis data show distinct warming. But a ten year snippet of data is so small a sample it is neither very convincing evidence of warming or cooling. Worse, 1998 was an El nino year with unusally high temperatures which makes using this year as a reference point even more statisticaly absurd. You might as well try and argue that the average height of people entering a building are growing shorter or have plateaued because someone who is 7’2″ had just entered.

Brian, you are sooo correct at Post 77. Were does Man get off to think He can decipher Climate Change where there is NO COMPLETE Base to start from…It’s all guess work in my opinion. Mother Earth is CONSTANTLY changing and adjusting to ALL inputs applied! Extremes happen DAILY on this Planet! Is this a result or an adjustment? This is the question that should be asked…and if so, so what, Mother Earth has Her own program to work Her wonders! The weather here in my 57 years hasn’t changed drastically. Practically all things Alarmists state are in cycles with Earth’s programs…Man isn’t changing things to the point of Alarmism….

Cool down guys… temperatures will continue to fall.. there may be lawsuits against those (AGW’ers in positions of power) who misled the public…. eventually, say in 2-3 years time.. LOL
OT but Global temps are most likely going to be quite NEGATIVE for June 2009 see Channel 5 AMSU satellite data confirming David Archibald’s predictions/views (once again)http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

PASADENA, Calif. — The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is continuing. New evidence from satellite observations also shows that the ice cap is thinning as well.

PASADENA, Calif. – Ice loss in Antarctica increased by 75 percent in the last 10 years due to a speed-up in the flow of its glaciers and is now nearly as great as that observed in Greenland, according to a new, comprehensive study by NASA and university scientists.

CLAIM 3 – “GlobaL TEMPS HAVE BEEN FALLING SINCE 2002 AND A REALITY CHECK for 2009 (see AMSU satelliete data)”

For a global average extending from 70S to 82.5N, we find a warming trend of 0.154 K/decade , while Christy and Spencer (version 5.2) find a warming trend of 0.147 K/decade .

CLAIM 4 – “No one uses GISS anymore see Watts due to manipulation of data and UHI (He is a meteorologist)”

GISS Manipulation – Where in the peer reviewed scientific literature is it claimed that GISS is maniupulated and a fraud? Please provide a reference to support your lunacy.

UHI – Has been removed from the GISS temperature data sets for decades, infact computations of global average tempertures use temperature sets that are for station relocations and heat island effects, and other bias’s.

Sorry, I see empahasized words enclosed in pointy brackets get filtered out.

UHI – Has been removed from the GISS temperature data sets for decades, infact ALL computations of global average tempertures use temperature sets that are CORRECTED for station relocations and heat island effects, and other bias’s.

Daemon (what an appropriate moniker ), perhaps you have a problem with topicality: Your Antarctic research reference in #86 is positively ancient – January 2008… A year and a half in science is probably
every bit as long as the proverbial week in politics.

Try this on for size:

18 April 2009

“Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia’s Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around [Antarctica] has expanded.”

Perhaps you are right, and mere high school students could tell that, and maybe us folks on this board lack this sophistication …. please do tell us what qualifications in statistics you have so we know what our aspirations should be.

Surely you’re joking, Mr. Daemon! You sure about that? Try Joanne’s post just a few days ago on the unmistakable correlation between US Postal rates and the Earth’s temperature – CO2 move over – we have a new contender!

After watching the sometimes “play the man not the ball” type contributions I would like to re-focus the exercise. The objective is to examine the need for a carbon tax. The question is “Why carbon?” This is a matter of basic physics/chemistry not of statistics nor of EVIDENCE of climate change. Can anyone demonstrate, using basic laws of physics /chemistry, how higher concentration of atmospheric CO2 will CAUSE global warming/climate change? If that can be established as fact then we can move on to ETS etc. If not then we need to spend our time finding ways to live with climate change and whatever else Nature has in store for us..in other words find the real drivers of climate change.

Can anyone demonstrate, using basic laws of physics /chemistry, how higher concentration of atmospheric CO2 will CAUSE global warming/climate change?

Very dodgy, my friend. The class of climactic models known as Atmospheric Oceanic General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) attempt to do exactly that. The reason why this is not proof of CO2 causing Global Warming is that the different factors affecting Global Temperature are not all well understood.

Models must a) describe all past known behavior of the clmate system. b) Make predictions of future behavior which can be verified experimentally and c) Provide a way to falsify the model

AOGCMs being very complex models, and the physics being non-trivial, describe the behavior of some elements of the physics in parametrized form – and tune the parameters to provide 20/20 hindsight. But, they also do not include several well known phenomena that affect global temperature, such as El Nino (ENSO), the Pacific Decadal Osscilaton (PDO) and the effect of the suns activity. So the models are not very successful in describing the past decade or so, and as expected the model builders have pointed to these non-modeled phenomena as the reason why the result don’t match.

Of course, it could well be that the physics input in the model does not reflect reality, and its impossible to tell if the natural phenomena are causing the mismatch or the physics is wrong. In my opinion, and that of any others, is that the physics is not reflective of all the factors that force temperature change. There is evidence (and I mean real data) that has emerged to challenge AOGCMs and there is a contentious battle afoot to establish the truth.

AOGCMs future predictive power depends on first having them correctly reproduce current data, and then make solid predictions to verify them experimentally.

AOGCMs are also notoriously difficult to falsify based on temperature alone. Some on this board have argued that we need to have 33 years (3 sunspot cycles) of relatively flat temperature before they feel AOGCMs are incorrect. So the fact that temperature has not risen appreciably even though CO2 content has increased is by itself not enough to falsify Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) yet, however, it certainly is not providing corroboration for its validity, and has increased doubt in the AGW hypothesis.

Other sensitive tests are being performed with heat content predictions, measurements of the radiation budget of the earth and the spatial distribution of warming which will likely validate or falsify the AOGCM theories in a much shorter time period.

So unfortunately, there isn’t any demonstration that will establish the warming effect of CO2 through calculation alone today in a way that is scientifically sound – as nature is the final word on reality, not man.

Thanks Steve & Player. The only thing that the strong correlation coefficient may confirm is that which we already know: That temperatures raise carbon levels. But I’m be wary of even saying that. There are plenty of reasons to suspect the recent correlation is almost entirely coincidental.

Kinda inconvenient that the rise in postage stamp prices has an R2 of 0.72 with temperatures since records began, “explaining 72% of variation in temperatures”. Link to that story

Daemon: Take your mocking style pretending to educate us about statistics and go learn some yourself.

John Watt (#98): “If that can be established as fact then we can move on to ETS”.

Sorry, John, but I don’t see that at all. In order to “move on to ETS”, as well as establishing that increased CO2 will cause global warming, you would also have to establish (among other things)…
1. The CO2-produced warming is not offset/dwarfed by other factors/processes.
2. The warming is bad/dangerous, on balance.
3. An ETS would be effective in providing a better outcome.

If there are any whizzes with wordpress out there I’d love some help to make these comments even better. Anyone know how to solve these issues:
1. Allow people who haven’t commented to tick to receive comment updates? (thanks Kendra)
2. Get buttons for html on the comments field.
3. Allow a preview of comments before they are posted? (good idea Tel)

Appreciate any help I can get. I understand CSS, but don’t have time to research the ins and outs of the plugins or the pitfalls of the code…

Joanne Nova: – The only thing that the strong correlation coefficient may confirm is that which we already know: That temperatures raise carbon levels.

So Joanne, you don’t think man dumping 8,000 billion tonnes of Co2 into the air annually makes any difference?

What happened to the supposed 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 change shown in the ice cores?

In reality CO2 can lag or lead depending on what is driving the temperature change. You think it would be surprising that it is currently leading now that Man is dumping 8,000 billion tonnes of Co2 into the air annually?

Prior to our influence with CO2, changes to temperature have always been the result of multiple factors. Methane is one such factor. Ocean temperature is another. Solar irradience. Repositioning of the continents.

The variables are known, and how all are changing is being measured.
For example. Solar irradience has declined over the last half century or so. Methane levels have stabalized, and the continents aren’t going anywhere fast.

However, Co2 has risen by upwards of 30% as a result of human emissions, and the science tells us that it contributes to the bulk of the observed warming.

Joanne Nova: – The only thing that the strong correlation coefficient may confirm is that which we already know: That temperatures raise carbon levels.

Once again – really slowly – Correlation is NOT causation. If you believe that, maybe you should take the remedial statistics class you want everyone else to take. As you seem to be so fond of Wikipedia as the fountainhead of all thats true, try “wiki correlation causation” in your favorite browser. (Pssst – trust me on this one – you will really lose credibility if you insist on this line of argument. This has nothing to do with global warming – just plain logic.)

So Joanne, you don’t think man dumping 8,000 billion tonnes of Co2 into the air annually makes any difference?

(Sorry Joanne – I know this is addressed to you, but I can’t resist…) Yes, as a matter of fact, I don’t think it does. If you are trying to impress the readers on this blog with a REALLY BIG NUMBER try this. The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 390 ppm – or 39 molecules out of 100,000. 5 years of your 8,000 billion tonnes of CO2 will add just one(1) single molecule of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of air, making the grand total a whopping 40 molecules out of 100,000. You see why its hard to take this seriously?

So if it is not CO2 causing the temperature change Joanne then what is?

Why have none of the so-called skeptics submitted for review and had published a paper to the peer reviewed scientific journals blowing the CO2 theory out of the water?

You don’t get around much do you? Try a very inconvenient climatologist from MIT, Richard Lindzen for starters, and tell me after that there is no peer reviewed result against AGW.

And don’t have much of a background in science either, right? A quote from Einstein (he was a very brilliant physicist, in case you were wondering)
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”
Theories cannot be proved right or wrong by other theories – data can and will.

Why do they instead ask technically illterate questions like – “Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period?”

Ooooh… careful of those 3 finger pointing back when you point fingers….

Long time WUWT? reader from Texas where we just learned our cow farts are endangering the world, but Mr. Obama won’t save us from them! (Thank God!) Just discovered you. Great and very informative Q&A session! I’ll be back! (normally a lurker)

(submit your workdpress questions to Anthony, he seems to have it under control)

Do you deride a Hungarian Phycisist? Perhaps you could, then explain where the error is.

Your expectations are ridiculously high, my friend.

With his “Correlation is EVIDENCE of Causation” comment, Daemon has shown that he has no understanding of logic, statistics, and of course with his latest on his inability to understand how blankets work, clearly demonstrated that he knows no science either.

Not to mention, his hiding behind the alias shows his lack of confidence in what he says. Well, in his defense, I suppose I wouldn’t want my name out in public either if I was spewing out such nonsense!

Definitely not worth wasting any more time or effort on this individual.

Jo,
I agree with Dave. If you want to know how to drive WordPress have a word with Anthony Watts
over at WUWT. He’s a really clued-up gentleman. I seem to recall, however, that even he hasn’t been able to find a fix for the preview problem!

Player says – Once again – really slowly – Correlation is NOT causation.

I said it is evidence of causation. It also implies causation. In fact it is that inference that is behind all experimental science, and hence all natural science.

A question for you Player. How many times do you need to hit your thumb with a hammer to realize that the causation of your pain correlates with the swinging of the hammer?

Player continues – The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 390 ppm – or 39 molecules out of 100,000. 5 years of your 8,000 billion tonnes of CO2 will add just one(1) single molecule of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of air, making the grand total a whopping 40 molecules out of 100,000. You see why its hard to take this seriously?

Yawn.

The layer of paint on your car is only 1/200th of an inch thick.
The earth’s atmosphere is 50 miles thick.

That is 634 million times thicker.

How can paint that is only .0016 millionths of the thickness of the earth’s
atmosphere block sunlight from getting underneath when the entire atmosphere
can’t do it.

.0016 millionths of an inch is very, very insiginificant.

Player says – My personal favorite, LIA+PDO a la Dr Akafuso.

The observed temperature rise since that period, has already been three times that decline, which appears mostly to be regional.

Use the + and – buttons to change the zoom level and drag the zoomed region
to the far left to get to recent years. Very nifty! But nah, no ice age,
little or otherwise is evident in the data over the claimed period.

Player talks about Richard Lindzen – who is skeptical of the link between smoking and cancer.

BTW in 2001, Lindzen served on an 11-member panel organized by the National Academy of
Sciences. The panel’s report, titled Climate Change Science: An Analysis of
Some Key Questions, has been widely cited.

The first paragraph of the summary states,

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.

End.

Later Lindzen subsequently publicly criticized the report summary for leaving out doubts about the weight that could be placed on 20 years of temperature records.

Jeez, really? I wonder what he thinks about the weight of only 10 years of temperature records where it is claimed by the technically illiterate that it has been cooling since 1998.

Lindzen has been a member of several think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute that have accepted money from companies such as ExxonMobil and Daimler Chrysler.

“So Joanne, you don’t think man dumping 8,000 billion tonnes of Co2 into the air annually makes any difference? ”

Crickey! Daemon argues-from-the-big-scary-numbers-department. Dear D, the universe is full of scary big numbers. It’s a mindless game. Look I can play it too… Oceanic stores of carbon = 39,000 Gt Carbon or 39,000,000,000,000 tonnes.
But according to this graph by the IPCC you’re 3 orders of magnitude out as well. Not just ten times wrong, not just hundred times wrong… 8,000 billion tons is really 8 billion tons.

Sorry D – can’t take anyone seriously who makes such embarrassing mistakes. But after you apologize for wasting our time you can expect a reply to the rest of your rude, inaccurate, mindless assertions.

But I’m am curious to know how you read anything about the Fielding debate at all, since you only ‘read peer reviewed journals’. Until you overcome this disability you can’t debate anything here, because – god forbid, you’d have to read an un peer reviewed web site. How will you cope?

No, peer review derided a Hungarian Phycisists paper. Hence the paper was not published in the major journals, and instead laid to – rest in peace – in a local proceedings contribution.

Geoff says – Perhaps you could, then explain where the error is.

I recall at least two major errors. First he assumed that Kirchoff’s Law implies that absorbed radiation is equal to emitted radiation in the atmosphere. It isn’t.

Secondly, he uses the virial theorem to calculate the KE of the atmosphere without any demonstration that it is valid. It isn’t, and btw has some obviously incorrect algebra e.g. he equates E_u (the upward LW from the atmosphere, a flux) with the total internal energy of atmosphere (not a flux). d’uh! And so on …

What are you talking about in post #116, Daemon, when you describe the interactive applet and its “lack of any ice age, including a little one”? The rest of the article talks extensively about both the last proper ice age as well as the Little Ice Age and the warmer interglacial (warmer than today, see next graph after the applet you refer to).

Do we have a Little Ice Age denier among us? If so be careful what pages you link to and make sure you read them in their entirety before you make a fool of yourself.

Thank you Jo et al for this enlightening insight to what went on behind the scenes and to Steve Fielding and the team that accompanied him for sowing a seed of doubt into the political scene. Can you organise a similar expedition into the Turnbull camp?

I was interested in the reference to Grist above and wondered whether the Inquisition had a similar handbook on how to deal with heretics? There does seem to be many similarities to the alarmist approach to AGW sceptics.

There is no doubt that the Inquisition was one of the greatest crimes against freedom of thought and scientific progress which ruined tens of thousands of lives and the reputation of the Roman Church still suffers to this day because of it.

I am sure that when history is written about AGW alarmism we will see a similar result with the Church of the IPCC. But the difference will be that the end of the IPCC Inquisition will come much quicker.

BTW, you do not have to write a similar handbook. Grist has done it for you. They use all the techniques that they write about describing you. All you have to do is include different references.

I have a tertiary background in psychology but I know what a graph is, and the warmers know it’s struggling. It’s why Gore now refers to it as a “moral issue”, because to massage it over the line from here he knew he had to redefine. Despite the intensity of these duels I go along along with Pielke and say the science won’t decide the matter. Warmism allows comfortable middle class westerners to feel good about themself without doing anything, apart from changing a few light bulbs, and it is why it has been such a difficult thing to counter. They haven’t been motivated to listen to reason because warming has been a problem that hasn’t really reached them yet(ets will change that) while filling a need to feel civic minded and engaged. When you jump out and call them stupid they don’t like it because adherence to AGW is emeshed into their identity. I have upset a lot of people this way because they need this problem and they have no intention of letting it go.

They call themself secular (proudly) but don’t even realize they are imposing their new found belief system on others. They believe that renewable technology will magically flourish once those evil oil companies are dealt with while they drive extravagant cars and fly everywhere. They are often idiots, more interested in a suitable orthodoxy than the science behind it. And that is what you are up against.

Would it be more tactful to keep drawing attention to the burgeoning number of sceptic scientists? It’s the one trend in climate science they will understand, and can’t reject. For instance, at the present rate of conversion there will be no warmer scientists left by the year 20??

Joanne makes comedy of my million to billion slip (it’s all she has to play with)

Joanne jabbers – “Human contributions make up 0.3% of total greenhouse gas emissions”

Ahahaha, why do you say this? Your own reference claimed 3.207%

By my calculation it is approaching 40% since pre-industrial co2 concentration is 280ppm and is now 385ppm.

What do you have to say about that Joanne?

Joanne Jabbers – But I’m am curious to know how you read anything about the Fielding debate at all, since you only ‘read peer reviewed journals’. Until you overcome this disability you can’t debate anything here, because – god forbid, you’d have to read an un peer reviewed web site. How will you cope?

Ah well, see, I read peer reviewed journals, and occassionaly debate on the Internet.
How Peculiar?

Btw the article above states that my type supposedly avoid debate. Well here I am, debating. Shouldn’t you be pleased to see me?

Btw the article above states that my type supposedly avoid debate. Well here I am, debating.

A debate would be an exchange between two parties holding opposing views based on logic. As Mr. “Correlation is evidence for causation” you fail the logic test quite badly. This isn’t a debate – its an illogical rant.

There are good debaters who post on this board, and I respect them in spite of violently disagreeing with them. Their facts are tight and their arguments cogent – something I can’t say about this charade.

Realistically there has been a meeting where 4 blokes turn up with a bunch of questions that it is not unreasonable to think that the people receiving the questions are not specifically prepared for. They gave an answer based on Fielding’s earlier comments about solar flares, and said they would get back to you on the three questions.

Anyone expecting anything different has obviously not had many meetings with politicians, or spoken to people who have. This kind of meeting happens 50 times a day in Canberra:) Wong would do well to speak to scientists who are a bit more well-versed in the arguments of the sceptics before she replies.

Have you seen the CPRS? It is quite clear to me that Wong does not in fact believe the science herself!

“But some scientists will shrilly defend the CO2 theory of unstoppable global warming, and their jobs, to the bitter end—because they are unlikely to ever find better jobs” Well.. Money for jam on toast.

It will also be interesting to see how Wong gets herself out of this, as most mainstream AGW scientists will be unlikely to put themselves in the position of wholesale support for ALP policy at the moment. How does one refute sceptical science without having to resort to science that is pretty clear that what the ALP proposes is not enough.

Which then leads to an interesting situation where Wong can actually use this “new” science to justify a position of being between the alarmists and the deniers… a sensible middle ground, and thus get her ETS through, by doing enough to get us started if AGW science is correct, and not so much that can’t be reversed if the other mob are right.

Joanne said: “Human contributions make up 0.3% of total greenhouse gas emissions”
Which should have read “Human contributions make up 0.3% of total greenhouse gas effect.” Righto, thanks Daemon, I was tad sloppy and our efforts are technically even more pathetic and less important that I wrote.

“Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).”

Except you didn’t notice the difference between ‘emissions’ and ‘effect’ anyway. You just cherry-picked a number, and it’s a spectacular example …

The number you picked: 3.207% comes from here:
“Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).”

…Hence, ’3.207%’ is true but only on days when planetary humidity is 0%.

In other words your choice of statistic has been valid on approximately no days out of the last 3,850 million years since the hydrosphere formed. Congrats.

Matt, you’re right about politicians and fruitbats, but seriously, if Penny Wong and her staff wanted to second guess the questions they only had to look at David’s website – all one page of it. How hard is “Where’s the evidence?”

And isn’t it just a tiny bit flattening to know that the Head of the Climate Institute at our foremost national university can’t name any empirical evidence?

He was going to a meeting to convince an uncertain engineer with four scientist mates. What did he think would impress them? Singing the jingle to the ad campaign: Think Climate, Think Change?

Obviously he’s used to chanting climate-model climate-model climate-model, and then see the faces of untrained students, lap-dog journalists, or paid-up monkeys pant and nod.

All of this argument, all of these politicians poised to subjugate people and demolish their own economies, all of this International furor and age-old alliances ready to be irreparably damaged, all of the waste –

over a college course in general science that Al Gore received a D grade in when he was 21 years of age from Professor Revelle.

Good article. At least some politicians in Australia understand that due diligence is required before spending trillions on an experiment in climate control based on a guess. Unfortunately, my congressman is Mike Honda and my senators are Barbara Boxer and the bleeding brain socialist, Nancy Pelosi, so there’s no possibility of a rational discussion here. Only Honda has even replied to my call for due diligence, and this was just a form letter praising himself for his ‘environmentally friendly’ policies. A classic case of deflection and denial.

Brian, regarding your post about the inaccuracies in the GISS data. Yes, there are numerous issues with the way that the data has been processed. I’ve done a lot of work using that data and despite what seems to be obvious attempts to skew error in a direction favorable to the AGW hypothesis, the data is a very rich source of contradictions to the AGW hypothesis. There’s a limit to how much one can subtly skew data to support an otherwise unsupportable hypothesis. Unfortunately for Hansen, this limit is to low to hide everything.

Your claim that correlation == causation is not always true, but more analysis is required to determine the direction of any causality and whether or not the correlation is coincidental.

A simple correlation test can be applied to data to determine the direction of causality. When applied to the ice core data, it’s clear that temperature changes first and CO2 levels follow. The AGW believers who understand this analysis don’t dispute it, but instead try to invent new physics in an attempt to justify their position. For example, Hansen’s claim that the oceans can magically store energy, yet not manifest a surface temperature change for decades.

When this analysis is applied to recent data, the direction of causality can not be determined as both increases and decreases in global average temperatures are equally correlated to the largely monotonically increasing CO2, moreover; the small seasonal drops in CO2 are more highly correlated to increasing temperatures than to decreasing temperatures. Of course, this is coincidental, but then again, the entire AGW case is based on an unwavering faith in coincidence as causation.

“Lindzen has been a member of several think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute that have accepted money from companies such as ExxonMobil and Daimler Chrysler.”

That’s doctor Lindzen to you, Mr Ad Hom. [The institutes cited gave grants without insisting on a predetermined outcome -- unlike the funding that James Hansen accepts that is tied to the AGW agenda. Hansen is dirty. He proves he's guilty by denying that he takes activist cash; if the IBD was lying about the payola, Hansen would sue the pants off of them. Therefore, it is Hansen who is lying. QED.]

Prof Lindzen is the Chair of MIT’s Atmospheric Sciences department. He has more street cred and professional credibility than the entire IPCC, doubled and squared. Compare that to Daemon’s zero credibility… really, citing a study from 2001?? That smacks of cherry-picking, no?

Climate scientists have learned a lot in the past 7 – 8 years. For example, they have learned that CO2 is still rising steadily — but at the same time, the planet’s temperature has been flat to declining:

For rational people, that falsifies the hypothesis that CO2 causes global warming.

No matter how Daemon and his ilk try to spin the facts, the planet itself is telling them that they’re wrong: as CO2 continues to rise, the globe isn’t warming. And there is no need to worry about this *entirely beneficial* trace gas; more CO2 has very little effect:

And of course, the CO2/temp question is central to the whole debate. In fact, there is no debate if CO2 doesn’t cause significant warming. That’s why the alarmist contingent always throws other things into the mix, like coral bleaching, ice thickness, the ozone hole, etc., etc. It’s their way of saying, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

They are trying to distract from the fact that they have lost the CO2=AGW argument.

Does CO2 cause global warming? So far, all of the empirical, real world evidence says “No.”

Your claim that correlation == causation is not always true, but more analysis is required to determine the direction of any causality and whether or not the correlation is coincidental.

Good points!
In addition, I’d like to point out that there are two other outcomes outside of A causes B, B causes A, A and B are coincidental. These are: A and B feed each other, and lastly, A and B have a common cause.

As you say, the historical data for CO2 and temperature does support T being the cause due to the phase lag in time defining the causal relationship. Present day data is ambiguous as you say, and definitely does not establish a causal relationship of any sort.

For all we know, the temperature rise we see is LIA recovery + PDO variations overlaid on it – and CO2 increase is ocean degassing + some anthropogenic activity. Which are uncorrelated to first order. The next few years will hopefully give us more data to resolve the truth.

Another correlation is biology. The growth of biomass is limited by the available solar energy, water and CO2, the raw materials of photosynthesis. As the biosphere expands, more biomass alive means that more is decomposing, contributing to higher CO2 (and CH4) levels. This accumulation of natural CO2 by biology as the temperature increases provides more fuel for more biomass, etc, and is the source of the multi-century time lags seen in the ice cores. An interesting point is that this is a negative feedback, which in magnitude is similar to positive feedback effect attributed to CO2. Considering the average efficiency of photosynthesis to be 6.6% and that about 25% of the Earth is hosting biomass (probably low since there’s a lot of life on the surface of the oceans), the energy used to construct biomass, which is otherwise not heating the Earth’s thermal mass, is,

0.066 * 0.25 * 1366/4 = 5.6 W/m^2

The total greenhouse reflection attributed to CO2 is about 40 W/^2 and the effect of biology is -5.6 W/m^2. However, the incremental effect of doubling CO2 is a 3,7 W/m^2 increase, while doubling the biomass would result in a 5.6 W/m^2 reduction. This shows that the climate is twice as sensitive to changes in biomass levels than it is to changes in CO2 levels. While biomass levels are less variable, a +/- 20% range (.20 – .30) is not unreasonable and represents a delta of 2.3 W.m^2 which is enough to offset virtually all of the alleged CO2 related feedback thought to be seen in the ice cores. CO2 outgasing happens too quickly, relative to temperature changes, to be seen in the ice core data as anything other than a bias and is a likely contributer to the hysteresis seen in the lag between temperature and CO2. The hysteresis is evident by the differences in the CO2
lag, depending on whether temperature is increasing (lag is shorter) or decreasing (lag is longer).

Biology is a negative feedback related to both CO2 levels and temperatures because increased biomass caused by increased CO2 and/or temperatures causes decreased surface energy and CO2 levels owing to increased conversion of both into biomass.

Player says – A debate would be an exchange between two parties holding opposing views based on logic. As Mr. “Correlation is evidence for causation” you fail the logic test quite badly. This isn’t a debate – its an illogical rant.

Ahahaha really? Let’s debate then. If you don’t believe “Correlation is evidence for causation” how do you know that rocks don’t fall up into space? Prove without
assuming “correlation is evidence of causation” that every example where rocks have fallen down are not just a massive string of coincidences.

Re Deamons answer to 84 VG. I would beg Joanne to encourage this person to stay on this blog. Thanks… he/she is skeptics godsend (just check his links no data just year old articles one about how antarctica is melting LOL (even the AGW’s agree antarctica is increasing… to them this is a AGW warming phenomenom… hahahaha.

Causation is evidence for correlation, but the other way around is not always true. Your debate argument is typical of the AGW side, where first principles physics is assumed to be unimportant. In other words, gravity tells me that rocks don’t fall up into space.

I says – By my calculation it is approaching 40% since pre-industrial co2 concentration is 280ppm and is now 385ppm.

Brian says – Do you think any of that came from the sea or the carbonate rock you nincompoop

Nope. We can tell very easily since the carbon we are adding to the atmosphere doesn’t have the same isotope signature as the carbon dissolved in the oceans.

Further where is the 8 gigatonnes of Carbon that we are putting into the atmosphere going? Do you think it’s just vanishing from the universe? No, we are contributing upward of 8 gigatonnes and about 5 are accumulating yearly. Hence the observed continual rise in CO2 concentration since the pre-industrial error.

Co2isnotevil:
Your number for biomass extent is very low. Except where the temperatures are to extreme there is biomass. Plus you would have to take into account the levels of biomass in the oceans as a lot of that is floating. Thanks for bringing that up.
Jo:
Thank You for keeping us up to date on this.

Wow! I forgot that I can’t use logic to argue about logic with someone who doesn’t understand logic… my bad!

Correlation is corroboration once the cause is established, it can’t be used to prove causality. It can spur efforts to study if there is a causal relationship, as co2isnotevil also pointed out, but by itself, it cannot be used to prove causality.

I seriously suspect you have no idea what I am talking about though. Let me guess – you didn’t look up “correlation causation” on Wikipedia like I suggested, did you? Or look at Joanne’s post on Postal Rates? Tsk, tsk…

Hey! How about another AGW proponent inspired technique to establish who is right. Lets look for consensus!

All those who think Daemon is right about “Correlation is evidence of causation” say “AYE”! (Forget for a moment that the opposite is a well established result in statistics and logic.)

Cheers.
PS. You know – sometimes I really get the feeling that you really actually believe what you say too. That is truly terrifying.

Daemon:
Where did you find a reference that says that breathing is carbon neutral. You also seem to have a problem with isotopes as the isotope for CO2 can vary depending on more than being emmited by burning hydrocarnons.
I personally be more impressed with your arguements if you could show that you do not have a carbon foot print.

For your information there is no such thing as being CARBON NEUTRAL because you are a CARBON Based Lifeform! To be Carbon Neutral would mean that you do not exist but are a figment of our imagination.

Nope. We can tell very easily since the carbon we are adding to the atmosphere doesn’t have the same isotope signature as the carbon dissolved in the oceans.

Another alarmist shoots himself in his own a**. Check those fax of yours carefully, dude. Check carefully if the isotope signature of oxygen matches that of the isotope supposedly coming from the carbon in fossil fuel.

ah, mister alarmist, aren’t you the one who claims the world has been “warming”? And you’re aware that CO2 solubility in water decreases with tempaerature, right?

and your’re aware that the eq fugacity (I won’t call it “vapour pressure”) of CO2 with all inorganic carbonates increases with temperature, right?

So, um, does it kinda “follow” that some of the CO2 could be coming from the ocean or the carbonate rock?

And if the warming was the result of the emergence from the LIA and NOT CO2, wouldn’t it follow that MOST of the CO2 we se in the air is from sea or rock?

Didja bother at all to look at what Joanne wrote about that? Or are you too good for that?

hey there chowderhead – the CO2 you breathe out comes from the food you eat – did ya know that it takes more energy in the form of carbon (processing fuel, transportation, fuel to bring water in, fertilizer) than the energy equivalent of the food?

So it follows, therefore, that you are polluting the air I breathe with the nonsense you breathe out, and I DEMAND that you cease and desist AT ONCE

co2isnotevil – Causation is evidence for correlation, but the other way around is not always true.

I did not say “always true” I said “evidence of” and “implies”, and here we not only have correlation but 200 years of scientific investigation to provide a mechanism relating the observed warming effect with anthropogenic CO2.

co2isnotevil – Your debate argument is typical of the AGW side, where first principles physics is assumed to be unimportant. In other words, gravity tells me that rocks don’t fall up into space.

Ahahaha pointless statement as by the same token the spectral properties of CO2 tell us that adding more to the atmosphere must increase the surface temperature.

You put a chicken in your oven, and turn it to 350′F. In 2 hours you return and find it partly cooked. In 4 hours you return and find it completely cooked.

The evidence that the oven cooked your chicken is no different than the evidence that CO2 is the cause of global warming.

There are some who argue that some unknown heat from some magical source is causing the temperature increase at the earth’s surface. But they ignore the fact that CO2 by it’s physical properties must warm the surface of the earth. Just as a hot oven element must warm the oven.

Denialists ignore the hot oven elements, and claim that some magical source of heat is cooking your chicken. Heat from outside the oven that comes in through the window perhaps. But where does the heat from the elements go? They argue that it magically escapes the oven through the window, and doesn’t touch the chicken.

Your claim that there’s 200 years of scientific investigation in support of your case is vacuous. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it operates by delaying the release of surface energy into space. We can calculate exactly what this effect should be and it under 1C, even using the IPCC inflated forcing numbers. The claim of a massive amplification of this by enough to increase the energy by over a factor of 5 is not supported by any scientific evidence, any physical theory or any observation. This is just the amount of amplification needed for the AGW hypothesis to be viable,
backed out by of the data by assuming that CO2 drives climate change.

The spectral properties of CO2 and the Kinetic Theory of Gases tells me that 40 W/^2 of narrow band surface energy is being captured and transformed into broad band thermal energy. They also tell me that doubling the CO2 concentration increases this by less than 2 watts/m^2 (the IPCC claims 3.7, but seems to ignore water vapor overlap).

Your oven argument is silly. In 2 hours, the temperature of the oven will still be 350F. What does the cooking time a chicken have to do with it?

The hot oven is being supplied with large amounts of energy to keep it hot. The Earth is too, but from the Sun. The energy from GHG already impacted the energy balance of the Earth as it arrived from the Sun, so you can’t count it again. You can try, and when you do, your models will predict temperatures that are too high and runaway effects that can’t happen. CO2 is like the insulation in the wall of the oven, except it’s like only one
wall of the oven is insulated and the others aren’t even there. You can make the insulation as good as you want on the side that’s insulated, but it won’t make the oven get any hotter, except perhaps very close to the insulated wall.

“As it happens David often doesn’t use the term ’scientist’ about himself – he prefers engineer or mathematician. (Scientists are too theoretical: Not disciplined enough for him.)”

Your description of him just then is correct, he has done the training that would make him suitable to be trained as a scientist, he has has to be an engineer and mathematician. I have no problem with that, his qualifications indicate he is extremely intelligent.

That is not the description he has given himself in his own article, which is scientist. He is not a working scientist, he has published nothing related to climate in the recognised scientific literature.

“Your claim that there’s 200 years of scientific investigation in support of your case is vacuous. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it operates by delaying the release of surface energy into space. We can calculate exactly what this effect should be and it under 1C, even using the IPCC inflated forcing numbers.”

The problem is the enhanced greenhouse effect. This was groundbreaking research, much like when Galileo overthrew the accepted science of his time, and it is taking the remnants of the orthodoxy a long time to catch up with it.

Can we get this discussion back on track ,please! Senator Fielding is seeking information about the role of increased CO2 in the global warming/climate change process so he can make an informed decision when HE (not any of us) has to vote on the upcoming ETS legislation. This legislation simply aims to limit the growth of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The most direct way to inform his decision is to use basic laws of physics/chemistry to examine the behaviour of atmospheric CO2 in increased concentration in the presence of infrared radiation. I am aware of at least one such analysis (Google Dr John L Nicol/greenhouse). Surely someone out there has the right mix of science knowledge/skills to test Dr Nicol’s analysis and conclusions that extra CO2 does not have anything like the impact on temperature that would justify an ETS as an effective tool to counter climate change. On this basis senator Fielding simply votes “NO”. Senator Wong then has the opportunity to take Australia to the forefront of the climate change issue (which is where our Govt. says it wants to be) by leading the search for the real cause(s) of climate change (maybe starting with Svensmark??)

In fact, there is no real world evidence at all showing that CO2 causes warming. None. Does Mr Daemon understand the word “none”? There is NO empirical evidence that CO2 is the cause of global warming.

Sure, there are models. But models are not evidence. And models are all the alarmists have. Take away their GCMs, and all that’s left is hand-waving. Along with a few flecks of spittle.

You are absolutely right that the enhanced greenhouse effect is the problem. It has absolutely no foundation in physics, is contradicted by the data and yet still has a religious following. Go figure.

Lets examine this in detail.

The foundation of this argument is the climate sensitivity factor which when multiplied by a change in forcing produces a change in temperature.

dT = k * dP

First, this ignores the first principles relationship between T and P, which is P = o*T^4, where o is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Besides this contradiction, the joke is how k is determined.

To arrive at k, one of 2 methods are used. The first is to examine the transition out of an ice age and *ASSUMING* that the transition was driven by CO2 changes, infer k from dT/dP, where dP is inferred by the changing CO2 levels in the ice cores and dT is the temperature change. The other method is to look at the presumed temperature and CO2 increase since the start of the industrial revolution, again *ASSUMING* that this change was caused by CO2 concentration changes, and use this to infer dT/dP and k. Depending on your other assumptions, this analysis produces values of k from about .5 to .9. The sensitivity calculated with first principles is 0.18. The value the faithful use is 0.8, which when multiplied by 3.7 W/m^2 ‘predicts’ a 3C temperature increase.

A bunch of models embed this into their construction, whose results are then held up as proof of the original assumption. Sounds a lot like junk science to me.

The Galileo analogy is very appropriate, as the AGW hypothesis is the biggest fraud in the name of science since the church insisted that the science only supported an Earth centric Universe.

The problem is the enhanced greenhouse effect. This was groundbreaking research, much like when Galileo overthrew the accepted science of his time, and it is taking the remnants of the orthodoxy a long time to catch up with it.

Really! The aggregate feedback factor is 2.6 to 5.5 like the IPCC claims it is, that result is from a set of AOGCM calculations. Back to reality – mind pointing me to some data that shows that the aggregate feedback in nature is anywhere close to that, or even positive?

Seriously, for the rest on this board – one of the things I struggle with with AGW alarmist hypotheses is the positive feedback. If indeed the feedback was large and positive, why didn’t we have the temperature run away during the alleged Milankovich induced warmings? What made the rise stop and the temperature drop? The AOGCMs have to predict a governing mechanism somewhere, and its not the logarithmic dependence – even that rises monotonically, even if it slows down. I have not seen any mention of it yet from any alarmist. What am I missing?

“If indeed the feedback was large and positive, why didn’t we have the temperature run away during the alleged Milankovich induced warmings? What made the rise stop and the temperature drop?”

If you look at the climate record, the temperature on a geological scale does swing wildly between the physical bounds set by the driving forces on the climate. We don’t live in geological time scales, so we don’t notice those extremes.

1. I would differ a little with George’s construct of the climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2, but is close enough to make ends meet

2. What Galileo was actually accused of, was his negelct to acknowledge that OTHER (canonical) constructs of “world order” CAME BEFOE HIS, and one of them was Augustine’s interpretation of Aristotle. In fact the Church at the time had no ESTABLISHED authority or preference to any of them. Galileo refused to ACKNOWLEDGE the others, because he believed his constuct set PRECEDENT. That was what he wss called to defend, and he couldn’t – primarily, because Cardinal Bellarmarini and others couldn’t really follow Galileo’s arguments.

George says – Your claim that there’s 200 years of scientific investigation in support of your case is vacuous.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it operates by delaying the release of surface energy into space.

Actually it back scatters IR and therefore warms the surface of the earth. A theory and a fact. In this case, theory that is essentially a logical tautology for which there is no counter argument and for which there is no counter evidence.

George says – The spectral properties of CO2 and the Kinetic Theory of Gases tells me that 40 W/^2 of narrow band surface energy is being captured and transformed into broad band thermal energy. They also tell me that doubling the CO2 concentration increases this by less than 2 watts/m^2 (the IPCC claims 3.7, but seems to ignore water vapor overlap).

An underestimation since you are ignoring feedbacks.

George says – Your oven argument is silly.

It wasn’t an argument, it was an analogy, dopey.

George says – The hot oven is being supplied with large amounts of energy to keep it hot. The Earth is too, but from the Sun. The energy from GHG already impacted the energy balance of the Earth as it arrived from the Sun, so you can’t count it again.

You are jabbering gibberish. The earth is not a black body, it does not have a single set equilibrium temperature. The more CO2 concentration increases, the more it warms the surface. Earth will still be at equilibrium with the sun but at a higher set mean temperature.

Since I never asked for a “peer reviewed” anything, it’s funny that Daemon should try to re-frame the question that way. In fact, as Prof Richard Lindzen shows, the climate peer-review game has been scammed. It is corrupt. Peer-review in the climate sciences no longer has any credibility. That being the case, it’s no wonder that Daemon constantly points to it, like a drowning man reaches for a twig.

Mike Davis says – For your information there is no such thing as being CARBON NEUTRAL because you are a CARBON Based Lifeform! To be Carbon Neutral would mean that you do not exist but are a figment of our imagination.

Breathing is carbon neutral since the carbon you emit was obtained by eating things like carbohydrates, which comes from foods, which form those carbohydrates using photosynthesis and removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Whatever backscattering is occurring is a tiny fraction of the capture of energy whose wavelengths are near 15u. When a CO2 molecule absorbs a 15u photon, the energy increases it’s effective temperature by hundreds of degrees C (consider Venus). Since CO2 is such a small constituent of our atmosphere, this energy is quickly transferred to the other, cooler, molecules in the atmosphere through collisions. It’s true that most of the energy reflected in this way finds it’s way to the surface, where it is eventually re-radiated. This is because most of the effect of CO2 surface energy reflection happens very close to the surface. None the less, all of the energy from the original 15u photon, by virtue of being converted from narrow band to wide band energy, eventually leaves the planet.

Regarding feedbacks, both the IPCC 3.7 W/m^2 number and my 2 W/m^2 do not assume any feedbacks. The feedbacks are rolled in to the bogus climate sensitivity factor which multiplies 3.7 W/m^2 into 3C of increase, instead of the 0.66C that it would be without any feedback. There is a small feedback effect from additional surface ice melting, but as we are currently close to minimum ice, the magnitude of this feedback is very small. Even with feedbacks, the net effect of doubling CO2 is less than 1C.

The Earth is not an ideal black body, but it’s deviations from ideal are known and can be quantified, besides, COE is not specific to black bodies. It doesn’t have a fixed surface temperature, but a set point which establishes the ratio of the surface energy to the energy leaving the planet, whose equilibrium state is achieved by a dynamic process called weather which affects surface temperature, humidity, pressures and cloud coverage and which all have second order effects on the set point. In a dynamic system, equilibrium is not static, but perturbations around a nominal value. Consider the auto pilot in an airplane. Even with modern digital controls, there’s still a noticeable, periodic fluctuation in the relative orientation of the plane.

Dave S – Sorry to bust your bubble. But as Prof Wegman shows conclusively, the peer-review process in the climate sciences is run by a very small clique of rent-seeking back scratchers:

Yawn. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that Manns’ results and analysis were the best available at the time with the knowledge available at that time. The NAS also concluded that the uptrend in the current temperature (hocky stick) is substantiated by not only the original analysis, but by many subsequent studies that produce their own similarly shaped plots. In fact you will find no less than 9 of them in the latest IPCC report.

“1. To model oscillations, the underlying phenomena must be understood – which they are not. The biggest computer in the Universe cannot model something if there is [little or no] understanding of how the thing works,”

They research the dynamics of the climate, that’s what they get paid for.

And when you die, all that accumulated carbon is ultimately turned back into CO2 and/or CH4 as you decompose.

BTW, the sequestration of carbon is a continuous process and explains the discrepancy between man’s emissions and the lower than expected atmospheric levels. It’s mostly in the form of dead ocean biomass collecting at the bottom. If it’s lucky enough, it ends up in a gas tank, most seems to end up in methane ices and possibly CO2 ices, which when subducted into the Earth becomes natural gas deposits.

Re #170
The hockey stick comparisons usually use temperature scales of fractions of a degree when the data is accurate to at best a degree or so. They also suffer from boundary issues between different data sets with different standard deviations and frequently attempt to make meaningful comparisons by comparing instantaneous temperature change to changes in long term averages.

If the day should ever come when we [the Nazis] must go, if some day we are compelled to leave the scene of history, we will slam the door so hard that the universe will shake and mankind will stand back in stupefaction..”

George – Whatever backscattering is occurring is a tiny fraction of the capture of energy whose wavelengths are near 15u.

Irrelevant. Increasing the amount of CO2 will reduce the mean free path an IR photon of the appropriate frequency takes to escape the atmosphere. CO2 backscatters IR in a specific range of frequencies. Increasing the amount of CO2 increases the probability of backscattering any individual IR photon in that frequency range.

George – When a CO2 molecule absorbs a 15u photon, the energy increases it’s effective temperature by hundreds of degrees C (consider Venus).

Ah what? CO2 Molecules, in fact all molecules have no temperature, since temperature is a bulk characteristic, and molecules are singular.

George – Since CO2 is such a small constituent of our atmosphere, this energy is quickly transferred to the other, cooler, molecules in the atmosphere through collisions.

Except, after it has released its IR photon, any collision may re-energise the CO2 molecule and allow it to emit another IR photon.

George – It’s true that most of the energy reflected in this way finds it’s way to the surface, where it is eventually re-radiated. This is because most of the effect of CO2 surface energy reflection happens very close to the surface. None the less, all of the energy from the original 15u photon, by virtue of being converted from narrow band to wide band energy, eventually leaves the planet.

“Eventually” is the key word. Before that, each photon does a random walk, up, down, up, up, down, up down, down, up.. etc. until it eventually reaches a high enough altitude that it is no longer absorbed. But while that is happening, it persists in keepin the atmosphere warm.

George – Regarding feedbacks, both the IPCC 3.7 W/m^2 number and my 2 W/m^2 do not assume any feedbacks. The feedbacks are rolled in to the bogus climate sensitivity factor which multiplies 3.7 W/m^2 into 3C of increase, instead of the 0.66C that it would be without any feedback. There is a small feedback effect from additional surface ice melting, but as we are currently close to minimum ice, the magnitude of this feedback is very small. Even with feedbacks, the net effect of doubling CO2 is less than 1C.

Some bold assertions there George, and you have not even mentioned water vapour feedback.

More CO2 = more warming
More warming = more evaporation
More evaporation = more water vapour
More water vapour = more warming.

Although the process is self limiting.

Oh and we are not limited to just a doubling of CO2 concentration either.

The amount of energy in a 15u photon is equivalent to the increase in kinetic energy that molecule would gain if the collection of molecules temperature was increased by 100′s of degrees. This energy excites vibrational modes in the molecule. When the CO2 molecule collides with an atom of a different gas, which is > 99% more likely than hitting another CO2 molecule, some of this energy is transferred. If this wasn’t the case, there would be no increase in the atmospheres temperature, since most of it’s thermal mass is N2, O2 and H2O and that is what needs to be heated.

Your 15u photon either escapes or hits the surface. If it hits the surface it contributes to the heat stored in the thermal mass which is radiated away, 90% of which other CO2 is not sensitive to.

Your water feedback forgets about a few things. First, evaporating water cools the surface from which it’s evaporated from. Second is more water means more rain, the consequences of which is more surface cooling. There are more, but it’s late.

Player – one of the things I struggle with with AGW alarmist hypotheses is the positive feedback.

And you struggle with this why? Without considering feedbacks you can only do a first order approximation. To get the second order you
have to add all of the feedbacks (both positive and negative) through numerical modeling.

Daemon: The NAS also concluded that the uptrend in the current temperature (hocky stick) is substantiated by not only the original analysis, but by many subsequent studies that produce their own similarly shaped plots.

Do these studies include the ones that use red noise as a more than adequate historical temperature proxy? Ones that can leap tall buildings and erase historical temperature records in a single bound. Presumably, they are in the peer-reviewed literature after all.

If you keep your eye on that scoreboard you will miss the game. The burgeoning number of sceptic scientists I was referring to are the rank and file who are realizing quickly of late that the CO2 mumbo has been sustained by ideology rather than data. This club of yours won’t be allowed to lead us all into studidity by the end of the day.

No one has said CO2 is evil. They have said if you have x amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you can expect to probably have a temperature of y. It is up to you to decide if you want that to happen or not.

Bugs: “They have said if you have x amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you can expect to probably have a temperature of y”

This is so bizarre, don’t you think? How can any sane person really think that such a prediction is possible, given the complexity of the earth’s climate systems, and the nature of the existing empirical evidence?

Bugs: “It is up to you to decide if you want that to happen or not.”

This is a good point, Bugs. I find it strange that there is not more discussion about what people think is the ideal/optimum conditions. For myself, my opinion is… quite a lot higher atmospheric CO2, and somewhat warmer. Obviously such things are beyond the control of human societies, so whatever we say will be nothing more than a pipe dream.

But it is interesting to note that some people act as though the conditions of the present or recent past are the ideal, and I can only suppose that the primary driving force here is sentimentality.

Good point. It doesn’t prove anything, of course. But is is certainly interesting to note that we regularly see reports of prominent people who “come out” and declare themselves as sceptics, whereas I can recall not one single instance of a sceptic who changed their mind and started preaching global warming hysteria.

George says – Your water feedback forgets about a few things. First, evaporating water cools the surface from which it’s evaporated from.

Yawn. Irrelevant. The feedback is overall well and truly positive. A thinking person would realise that if the effects were negative, then there would have been no heating to cause the increase in water vapor in the first place. The direction must be positive.

George says – Second is more water means more rain, the consequences of which is more surface cooling.

No. Increasing the temperature of the atmosphere allows it to hold more water without raining it out.
In other words, higher temperatures = more water vapour = more heating = more water vapour = more heating….
The process is self limiting but serves to magnify the initial heating effect of CO2.

No, but emitting it into the atmosphere in unnatural concentrations definitly makes it a pollutant (sorry Bob Carter ahahaha), and it’s responisble for the current observed warming.

Deniers argue that CO2 is vital to life. But so are Phosphorus, Nitrogen, etc. Yet Phosphates and Nitrates are universally recognized as being pollutants when deposited in unnatural concentrations by man. So yup, CO2 is definitly a pollutant alright.

But so are Phosphorus, Nitrogen, etc. Yet Phosphates and Nitrates are universally recognized as being pollutants when deposited in unnatural concentrations by man. So yup, CO2 is definitly a pollutant alright.

Gosh I hate validate Godwin’s law. But this ABSOLUELY qualifies you as a Nazi.

From Document on related site ScienceSpeak.com – The current CO2 absorption frequencies are saturated, meaning that they are already reflecting close to 100% of the radiation at those frequencies. As the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the band of frequencies at which they reflect radiation widens. This band widening is logarithmic—the amount of radiation reflected by the CO2 is the logarithm of the level of atmospheric CO2—so the warming effect of each extra quantum of atmospheric CO2 is much less than the effect of the previous quantum. (Each doubling of CO2 has the same effect once beyond about 100 ppmv, at which concentration the CO2 band is already saturated.)

Oh absolutely! Adding more CO2 can’t warm things any more than they already are. Just look at Venus. It’s as cool as a cucumber because it’s CO2 absorption spectra is “saturated.”

Ahahahaha!

Oh yea, and why is it that blankets have almost 100% saturated Infared Radiation absorption bands. Yet putting an additional blanket on the bed will reduce the rate of heat loss from a warm body under the covers.

Saturation means greater back scattering and more steps in the random walk from the earth’s surface to outer space. More steps = higher rates of backscatter and higher surface temperatures. Exactly what happens when your mommie puts another blankie on your crib.

Saturation means greater back scattering and more steps in the random walk from the earth’s surface to outer space. More steps = higher rates of backscatter and higher surface temperatures. Exactly what happens when your mommie puts another blankie on your crib.

Now there we have it. Under conditions of high pressure, we have more backscatter. High pressure = clear weather, summer or winter.

So there it is, Ladies and Gentlemen, problem solved. Mild weather in the Summer, clear and cold weather in the Winter, is causing global warming.

Bring on low pressure and storms!

we have enough storms going on in peoples thought processes at it is.

Valentine’s law: People will say ANYTHING, no matter how stupid, to defend a stupid position

Steve says – This is so bizarre, don’t you think? How can any sane person really think that such a prediction is possible, given the complexity of the earth’s climate systems.

Ahahaha, no it certainly is not bizzare. Sure, it’s complex, certainly not random, but more importantly infact, chaotic.
Why is this important? Because a chaotic system is constrained in it’s behaviour and therfore largely predictable over the long term. Fine grained predictions are not possible of course, but once the attractor set is identified, then it is guaranteed that the system will stay within the orbits of that set of points.

Matthew Lague says – How about a bit less harry Potter and a bit more reality.

How about getting an education. The earth’s climate is observed to be a chaotic system. If you have no idea what that means or the consequence of this in regards to modelling then you have no business debating AGW whether for or against.

Unless of course you just wish to take pot shots from the side lines like the spotty little anorak Brian G Valentine, then go ahead.
But I will simply ignore it and move to the next topic unperturbed, ahahaha.

Saturation means greater back scattering and more steps in the random walk from the earth’s surface to outer space. More steps = higher rates of backscatter and higher surface temperatures. Exactly what happens when your mommie puts another blankie on your crib.

Backscatter?

I thought backscatter was caused by reflection from dust, aerosol, etc. Can CO2 in gaseous form actually produce any backscatter at all?

Also, blankie’s don’t circulate in convection, unless you have been talking to my wife, but don’t listen to her! I do not cause blankie convection dammit.

Daemon, a word does not take on a different meaning just because you say so. “Pollute” has its root in the Latin word “lutum” which means “mud”. The accepted meaning of the word “pollute” is to render impure or dirty. That is only true of CO2 if you are stupid enough to fall for the government TV ads with all the little black balloons rising up through the air.

Sadly, people are being indoctrinated into thinking this is the nature of CO2, and I often think if we did a street survey and asked Joe Bloggs (or Joe the Plumber for our American friends) what CO2 looks like he would say that it’s black and dirty.

History offers many other examples of people being suckers on a grand scale. In line with Brian Valentine’s allusions to Nazi Germany: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” (Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Propaganda Minister), and he continued, btw:

“… The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

I attended a briefing today on waste management, and every other slide in the presentation featured projected costings of the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in the form of levies on the processing of waste – organic and inorganic. Many people believe erroneously that carbon taxation will only target the burning of fossil fuels and only affect the “big polluters” like oil companies and coal plants. They are wrong. And when they wake up to the fact that it will affect their own wallets and affect them everywhere they turn and whatever they do, they will start to question the “science”. I believe they already are.

Why is this important? Because a chaotic system is constrained in it’s behaviour and therfore largely predictable over the long term. Fine grained predictions are not possible of course, but once the attractor set is identified, then it is guaranteed that the system will stay within the orbits of that set of points.

Agreed, and it is known from measurable historic data that our current system has regularly cycled (over the last million years or so) between temperatures several degrees hotter than today and may 8 to 10 degrees colder than today. The bounds of the attractor set have been identified, it includes quite a large swing, and somehow people survived all that.

Read about Ötzi the Iceman, from an age only a little bit cooler than today. He lived by walking through the mountains of Europe and the ends of his bones are worn from the heavy walking he did. His only possessions were a few furs and a copper axe. Died age 45, weight 50 kg. They bred them tough back then, but I’m not too interested in finding out how tough, because I don’t want to go back there.

If you don’t believe “Correlation is evidence for causation” how do you know that rocks don’t fall up into space?

Of course I can never KNOW that rocks don’t fall up into space, I can only know that out of the times that I have tested it, they haven’t yet fallen up into space. People made this observation many times before Newton was born and they had absolutely no idea about what might cause this to happen. In fact, scientists are still arguing to this day about what causes gravity and whether “gravitons” exist, whether gravity waves can be detected and so forth.

Thus we have a reasonably consistent and predictable effect, which sadly tells us nothing whatsoever about the cause. I suggest you try dropping a few rocks, take a few measurements, then try predicting the results of some magnetogravity experiments… do tell us how you go with that.

“Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period?”

Can I just get you on record confirming or not whether you believe computing a temperature trend from 1998 to present is statisicaly significant?

I can compute temperature trends much faster than that, I just turn on the oven and take a temperature measurement ever minute or so and I get a whole stack of statistical data — enough to find a trend within an hour or so! Yes that’s right, statistically significant temperature data in just a few hours.

Oh, you were probably talking about global temperature data. Hmmm, statistics is such a general-purpose tool. What exactly makes whole-earth data different to my oven measurements? Surely statistics applies to both of them equally much so?

Telephone, “backscatter” of radiation refers to a number of phenomena, depending on the medium; in the atmosphere refers to one variety of Mie scattering or another – in one limit, Rayleigh scattering from small particles, in the other limit, diffuse scattering from larger particles, all increasing with atm density (air pressure)

Why do you think the overall feedback is positive? Do you have any idea how feedback control systems work?

Venus is not a case of runaway greenhouse effect. It’s atmosphere is equivalent to the Earth’s ocean and acts as the primary store of heat for the planet. As I pointed out earlier, when a CO2 molecule absorbs a 15u photon, it’s equivalent temperature rises by hundreds of degrees. In the Venusian atmosphere, the probability of a CO2 molecule colliding with another hot CO2 molecules is nearly 100%, while on Earth, it’s a tiny fraction of one percent. This means that energized CO2 has nowhere to share its newly obtained energy. And of course, the main reason Venus is hot and Mars is cold, even though the primary constituent of each atmosphere is CO2, is their relative distance from the Sun.

The reason an extra blanket helps is because it’s a blanket is not a perfect insulator and heat is lost based on the basic heat transfer equation, dQ/dt = -kA dT/dx. Of course, like many of your analogies, they are irrelevant. CO2 does not act like a blanket or a greenhouse.
Saturation means that most of the 15u photons that the surface is emitting are being reflected by CO2, which means that adding more CO2 will not increase the amount of energy reflected, nor will it increase the delay between when a 15u photon is emitted by the surface and when this energy ultimately finds its way off of the planet.

I debunk a lot of junk science, and your arguments and attitude are very similar to others who promote junk. You think that mixing a kernel of truth with wild speculation makes that speculation true. That may work on weak minds, but it’s not science. You also seem to think that attacking the messenger is somehow a way to justify your position. I suggest that you shut up and learn.

The blanket argument illustrates a pervasive misunderstanding among warmists. Back in the 1800′s when the term ‘greenhouse effect’ was coined, scientists didn’t understand quantum mechanics and used the term ‘greenhouse effect’ because there was no other appropriate terminology at the time. What many warmists fail to understand is that the CO2 related greenhouse effect is like a greenhouse with 90 percent of it’s windows smashed. The full greenhouse effect, including water vapor, is equivalent to a greenhouse with 2/3 of it’s windows gone. CO2 acts like a sieve and not a blanket. A better term might have been the colander effect.

F. E Smit. said…
Proof of the CO2 madness/scam (top madman: Al Gore) is that in my 76 years on this globe, there has not been a noticeable temperature rise nor a sea level rise. (I lived 72 years at sea level!)
To observe that, we don´t need complicated science, just a plain open intelligent mind.
So let all those alarmist idiots shut up!
F. Eckenhuijsen Smit.

I posted a question to this post of yours in the Science Teacher thread, which seems to have gone dry. A response would be very important to me:

You said

#

BTW, the only correlation involving those who deny the cigarette and cancer link is with those who smoke, which is a factor unrelated to the actual science. Ad hominem attacks aside, it’s very common that AGW proponents fail to discern the difference between correlation and coincidence.

Tel says – I thought backscatter was caused by reflection from dust, aerosol, etc. Can CO2 in gaseous form actually produce any backscatter at all?

Dude, energy absorbed is never re-radiated right? It’s lost forever. Vanishing into the nether regions of Nodd. Ummm ahahaha, no. The fact is children, the energy will be re-emitted and quite often at the same frequency at which it was absorbed. The process is called scattering. Further, energy will spill into the absorption line from adjacent frequencies as photons from those energy regions are compton scattered.

You learn something new every day ay? Oh by the way *** Brian G Valentien *** Raleigh scattering does not apply to scattering by individual atoms. Compton scattering is the process that describes scattering by thermal atoms. Ahahahaham you nincompoop.

Tel – Also, blankie’s don’t circulate in convection

Basicaly what you are saying is that by making the atmosphere warmer, there is more convection and it becomes cooler.
Oh Ermmm. But if that were the case, then the reason for the convection that initiated the cooling wouldn’t exist, ay. So how do you dopes conclude that the atmosphere cools? Why by presuming that it’s warming of course. Ahahahaha. Stupid!

All of the 15u energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule is transformed into kinetic energy vibrating that molecule. This gets distributed among the other molecules that the CO2 collides with. You don’t seem to believe this, so tell me, how does the rest of the atmosphere heat up?

You seem to think that there’s this sea of 15u photons bouncing between CO2 molecules. N2 and O2 are completely transparent to 15u energy, so there will be no atmospheric heating as a result.

BTW, if you want anyone to consider what you say, you might want to tone down the condescending attitude and insults. We see this a lot from the warmists and the only effect it has is to undermine whatever it is you might want to say.

If you believe so much in Wikipedia, look up ‘radiative forcing’ and ‘climate sensitivity’. Wikipedia is heavily biased to the AGW viewpoint, so this does seem to accurately reflect the AGW science, flaws and all. Make sure you look at both. The ‘radiative forcing’ entry describes the nebulous climate sensitivity constant and the ‘climate sensitivity’ page clearly states that the 2 methods used to infer a value for this **ASSUME** that GHG forcing is the dominate influence. The science flaws are exposed even as they try to hide behind a so called ’3 degrees of consensus’.

… the energy will be re-emitted and quite often at the same frequency at which it was absorbed. The process is called scattering.

I accept that energy is absorbed, causing warming and also accept that the warming causes re-radiation, but in my experience this process is not referred to as “scattering”. If you want to call it that, then I don’t have a problem, but you probably will get some confusion as people think you are talking about more conventional types of scattering.

If object A radiates onto object B, it cannot make object B hotter than object A, so the re-emission will be at lower frequency than what was absorbed. Enthalpy must be lost in the process, errr 2nd law of thermodynamics I believe (someone smart will quickly correct me if I got that wrong).

If you think you have found a way around the 2nd law then I suggest that the Patent Office is a more appropriate forum for your discovery than hanging round here I’m not gonna say it can’t be done.

Sorry bugs, I don’t do Wiki definitions. Wiki is run by lefty eco fanatics highly biased towards the sicko Ehrlich/Malthus world view that humans are a malignant virus on the face of Mother Gaia Earth, so without a doubt their definition of “pollution” is going to include anything and everything that human beings do or add to the natural world (Because their view is that we are not actually a part of the natural world.)

As I said above, words do not take on a new meaning just because you – or Wikipedia – say so.

If object A radiates onto object B, it cannot make object B hotter than object A, so the re-emission will be at lower frequency than what was absorbed. Enthalpy must be lost in the process, errr 2nd law of thermodynamics I believe (someone smart will quickly correct me if I got that wrong).

If you think you have found a way around the 2nd law then I suggest that the Patent Office is a more appropriate forum for your discovery than hanging round here I’m not gonna say it can’t be done.

Your problem is you don’t understand the science behind back radiation. No one has ever said the 2LOT is going to be broken.

Roy Spencer accepts that the greenhouse effect is real.

“But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.”

Bugs, a committee report is not evidence. If there are peer reviewed papers inside that report then that’ll make it easier for you to find them and post the references here eh? But no one can find THAT mystery paper that shows observational evidence that carbon is cataclysmic.
I’ll make it as easy as I can: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

Nobody here is saying that the greenhouse effect isn’t real. Only that the heuristics you so firmly believe in are absolutely and irreconcilably wrong about the magnitude of this effect. A realistic upper limit for the effect of doubling CO2 is less than a 1C increase in surface temperature. Anything larger than this would be discernible in the data, which is why this is an upper limit.

You also somehow seem to believe that because man is putting CO2 in the air and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it somehow proves that man will cause dangerous warming. This is as bad as believing that because models that assume AGW is dominant predict that AGW is dominant somehow proves that it is.

Bugs, a committee report is not evidence. If there are peer reviewed papers inside that report then that’ll make it easier for you to find them and post the references here eh? But no one can find THAT mystery paper that shows observational evidence that carbon is cataclysmic.

The IPCC report is the summation of the evidence, gathered from numerous papers that are all referenced. The case is quite complex, so there is no ‘one’ paper. It is a matter of collating all the diverse research that has been done to be able to get the big picture.

They step through the case quite logically, I don’t know what your problem is, unless you just don’t understand it. You may disagree with the case, but you cannot say there is no evidence.

To model oscillations, the underlying phenomena must be understood – which they are not. The biggest computer in the Universe cannot model something if there is [little or no] understanding of how the thing works,

You are confusing your understanding of climate with their understanding up climate.

There’s not a single piece of unambiguous evidence that AGW is an important effect anywhere in the IPCC report. Please, cite the one you think is most important and I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it.

There is no one piece that is the ‘most important’. I have already said, there is a logical series of steps taken to construct a case, tying together all the pieces. Any one piece of evidence by itself is not enough. As people are continually saying, the climate is very complex. The report is that large, not because they thought they would like to write a large document, but because it needed to be. As it is, I think it should be bigger, as there are many areas that could do with some more detail.

You can’t even cite one piece of evidence, but I’m not suprised The entire case is circumstantial and based on the **ASSUMPTION** that AGW is significant. Lets try something else. If the sensitivity of AGW can be unambiguously confirmed to be less than 1C for the first doubling and less than 2/3 C for the next doubling, how does this affect the IPCC findings? I can show that this is true, can you show otherwise, without relying on the IPCC metric, or any papers whose models assume the metric? Surely you must be able to cite something, after all, this is the foundation of the AGW hypothesis.

Do you understand how the climate sensitivity is estimated? One method infers it from the ice cores and the other infers it from estimates of CO2 and temperature over the last few centuries. Both methods assume that CO2 forcing is driving the climate and because they both make this mistake, the required amplification is far too high than the physics can support. Just look at the preposterous mechanisms that are being promoted to explain why the predicted increases haven’t occurred.

You asked for the one most significant piece of evidence, I said there isn’t ‘one’. The whole report is the ‘one’ piece of evidence. Any ‘one’ part of it does not stand by itself. If I was to refer to the models, you would object to the models, if I was to refer to the ice, you would object to the ice. If you put all the pieces together, you get a consistent case for AGW.

Joanne Nova: Bugs, a committee report is not evidence. If there are peer reviewed papers inside that report then that’ll make it easier for you to find them and post the references here eh?

Ahahahahahahahah……… do you even know what the IPCC actually does Joanne? It doesn’t produce any scientific measurement of its own. The IPCC simply reviews the data that is in the ***peer reviewed scientific press***. It weighs the various results from a variety of works in each area of study and provides a weighted distribution of the results of the scientific inquiry. Such Meta-studies like the IPCC report are of particular value to clueless laypersons and so called “policy makers” who just don’t understand the science very well. On the other hand, fools flagellate about with every report of supportive or contrarian evidence and research. But Scientifically Literate people know that the fringes of science are somewhat chaotic particularly, for example, in the field of medical science. So Scientifically Literate people don’t hold up every piece of contrarian research as proof of anything, particularly when it represents a nuance adjustment to the prevailing view. However, paid shills often do this for the purpose of creating confusion among the ignorant.

And speaking of Contrarian Research.

Would you care to provide a reference to three peer reviewed articles appearing in science journals over the last 20 years that claim
that CO2 is not a cause of global warming? Ahahahaha…

No, 2 wrongs don’t make a right. The only consistent case that arises from putting the pieces together is that AGW is finite, but far too small to worry about. The only thing consistent about the IPCC case is the pervasive assumption that AGW drives the climate. Using an assumption to make a case to prove the assumption is junk science, plain and simple. What part of this don’t you get?

I agree. Breaking these insipid arguments is boring and way too easy anyway. Too bad we can’t get warmists who actually understand the physics to participate. Oh wait, most of them are already skeptical of the warmists hyper inflated claims.

Anyone prepared to filter out the facts from the previous 240 posts? The truth of the situation is probably in there somewhere. I again refer all of you to Dr John L Nicol’s analysis of the behaviour of atmospheric CO2 in the presence of infrared radiation. He appears to have quantified the various processes sufficiently well to support an assurance to Senator Fielding that an ETS is not needed.

I have seen from your earlier posts that you are keen on this. However, I confess that “the behaviour of atmospheric CO2 in the presence of infrared radiation”, being a minor part of the climate equation, is not really of that much interest to me.

No, 2 wrongs don’t make a right. The only consistent case that arises from putting the pieces together is that AGW is finite, but far too small to worry about. The only thing consistent about the IPCC case is the pervasive assumption that AGW drives the climate. Using an assumption to make a case to prove the assumption is junk science, plain and simple. What part of this don’t you get?

It does not make any assumptions about AGW, and deals with natural and anthropogenic forcings. The document stands as a whole, what part of it do you have a problem with?

I have looked at his paper. I didn’t take the time to follow through all of his arguments, but those I did seemed reasonable, as did most of his conclusions. Many are similar to things I’ve talked about. One difference is that he uses other arguments to show how the widening of the absorption band is smaller than generally thought and is so small that the effect can be considered zero. I don’t bother with that because even the IPCC overestimated forcing power yields an effect which is too small to worry about and I’m not convinced it drops completely to zero, although it’s certainly smaller than the consensus of belief will acknowledge.

His discussion of vibrational modes and energy transfer is exactly as I’ve described, but at a deeper level detail. The bottom line is that there must be energy transfer from excited CO2 to the rest of the atmosphere in order to heat it up. The idea that energy is stored as a sea of 15u photons exchanging between CO2 molecules is irrelevant. I did a little googling and surprisingly, this seemed to show up in several places. Yes, this would store energy in the atmosphere, but as photons, not as the kinetic energy required to heat up the rest of the atmosphere.

The paper will get the usual demerits for a lack of references, but those could be added where needed. Most is basic physics, but whenever there is an ‘it can be shown that …’, a reference is generally required.

There’s no limit, but I will only accept links to individual papers which are peer reviewed. To stop you just wasting our time you’ll need to explain in your own words why each paper you list shows that carbon causes significant planet wide warming.

Time for you and Daemon to reveal yourselves, or stop wasting our time with your illogical uninformed and patronising outbreaks. Back up your words.

[Deleted. 'bugs' lift your standards... in order to hold a meaningful discussion we need people to back up their baseless claims... otherwise they are just time-wasters. Either post evidence, admit you can't, or use your full name.]

Tel says – If object A radiates onto object B, it cannot make object B hotter than object A, so the re-emission will be at lower frequency than what was absorbed. If you think you have found a way around the 2nd law then I suggest that the Patent Office is a more appropriate forum for your discovery than hanging round here I’m not gonna say it can’t be done.

Ahahaha you are confused. Photon emission is a quantum phenomenon obeying quantum emission rules, not kindergarten level science. We are not talking about objects, we are talking about an atom or molecule, that can absorb one, two or more low frequency photons and emit a lower, similar, or even higher frequency photon which has the combined energy of the others.

By the way, the random walk process by which an IR photon leaves the atmosphere is called radiative diffusion, and with each absorption/emission there is a 50% probability of the IR radiation being sent downward thereby warming the earth’s surface. In terms of heat retention, the more CO2 you add, the more light you backscatter downward, all of the energy eventually downgrades to heat so there is always a source of photons to backscatter.

“[IPCC] does not make any assumptions about AGW, and deals with natural and anthropogenic forcings…”

Hahahahahaha, that’s really funny! Just to remove any doubt about the fallacy of that statement, here is the IPCC MANDATE, copied and pasted from http://www.ipcc.ch:

“The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of HUMAN-INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE [emphasis mine], its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.”

The IPCC is not, and have never been, mandated to look into anything but the effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change. You have it in their own words right here.

Bugs again: “There has been a long and open debate in the scientific circles for decades, as there is on all matters of science.”

George – The reason an extra blanket helps is because it’s a blanket is not a perfect insulator and heat is lost based on the basic heat transfer equation, dQ/dt = -kA dT/dx. Of course, like many of your analogies, they are irrelevant. CO2 does not act like a blanket or a greenhouse.

Come now George. The insulation is accomplised the same way.

Admit it.

A blanket keeps you warm by radiating back toward your skin some of the Infared Radiation that your skin radiated outward toward the blanket. The net radiative flow is always outward.

The greenhouse gases act like a blanket over the surface of the Earth, keeping it around 20 centigrade degrees warmer than it otherwise would be, which is a phenomenon known as ‘the greenhouse effect’. Increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere enhance the greenhouse effect and, on average, lead to further warming.

Your problem is you don’t understand the science behind back radiation.

At this stage I’m just trying to get people to use a consistent name for the phenomenon, before it was “backscattering” then just “scattering”, now it is “back radiation”. Would it be OK to settle on something, so we can at least ensure we are talking about the same thing? Then we can argue about how it works.

No one has ever said the 2LOT is going to be broken.

Well, I was specifically responding to Daemon’s comment #213, “energy will be re-emitted and quite often at the same frequency at which it was absorbed” which implies no loss of Enthalpy.

Photon emission is a quantum phenomenon obeying quantum emission rules, not kindergarten level science. We are not talking about objects, we are talking about an atom or molecule, that can absorb one, two or more low frequency photons and emit a lower, similar, or even higher frequency photon which has the combined energy of the others.

I think you are going to need to include some kinetic energy in the picture. There’s no particular reason to presume that the infra red emission comes from the same atom or molecule (or even the same chemical) as where the energy was absorbed.

I accept your point that the 2LOT applies on the macroscopic scale (i.e. the average of many interactions) rather than the quantum scale, but your random-walk model forces constant Enthalpy at both macroscopic and quantum scale. Such a model is wrong by definition. I guess a more complex random walk could somehow allow the infra red frequency to (on average) move to lower frequency emission, and then also the probability of interaction changes because you have “walked” into a different absorption spectra. Then of course you have to support kinetic energy and the “walk” from one gas to another, dunno how that’s going to work. Hmmm, messy. Building up Maxwell–Boltzmann statistics one particle at a time sounds like an excellent topic for a research grant requesting another acre of computing cluster. Proud to see my tax dollars at work.

Maybe the end result could potentially produce meaningful figures… sounds like chunkular physics and standard fourth-power radiation formula would get a more accurate answer and faster.

To clarify, we are discussing the feedback of Water Vapor as positive.

George – Do you have any idea how feedback control systems work?

Yes, It’s simple George.

The effect of additional CO2 is to produce a small warming which increases the water content of the atmosphere, which produces a larger warming.

Water vapour absorbs Infrared Radiation, and is even a better absorber than CO2. (Oh by the way, in case anyone was wondering. Water doesn’t scatter IR in the same “saturated” (ahahahah) band as CO2)

Of course the process is self limiting but it serves to greatly amplify the initial temperature increase from additional CO2 concentration.

Now you tell me any additional water in the atmosphere is just rained out, but we both know this is nonsense, don’t we George. Increasing the temperature of the atmosphere allows it to hold more water WITHOUT raining it out. Admit it.

George says – In the Venusian atmosphere, the probability of a CO2 molecule colliding with another hot CO2 molecules is nearly 100%, while on Earth, it’s a tiny fraction of one percent.

Ahahaha but as you may have noticed, the number of CO2 molecules in Earths atmosphere are neither decreasing or remaining stagnant.

George says – And of course, the main reason Venus is hot and Mars is cold, even though the primary constituent of each atmosphere is CO2, is their relative distance from the Sun.

UM no. The surface of Venus is above the temperature of molten lead – even though the surface receives less sunlight than the surface of frozen MARS – because of the CO2 Greenhouse effect of its atmosphere.

George – All of the 15u energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule is transformed into kinetic energy vibrating that molecule. This gets distributed among the other molecules that the CO2 collides with. You don’t seem to believe this,

Nope.

George – so tell me, how does the rest of the atmosphere heat up?

Quite simply because the more CO2 you add, the shorter the mean free path the photons take to escape. The shorter the mean free path, the better the insulation. It’s a diffusive walk. You can’t saturate anything. The more material you have, the more backscatter you get.

A blanket keeps you warm by radiating back toward your skin some of the Infared Radiation that your skin radiated outward toward the blanket. The net radiative flow is always outward.

Transfer of heat operates by conduction, convection, and radiation. All three mechanisms operate all the time, but in any particular case, one or other may be dominant.

If you are laying on wet earth, piling blankets on top will not make you any warmer. Conduction through the wet earth is the primary cause of heat loss and radiation becomes irrelevant. On the other hand, an object in a vacuum can safely ignore both conduction and convection and only radiation matters.

In the case of the atmosphere, the cooling effect of convection becomes increasingly efficient, as the warming effect of the “greenhouse effect” becomes stronger.

This is because capture of infra-red close to the earth’s surface casts a shadow on the high atmosphere preventing the capture of infra-red higher up. Warming close to the surface causes the air to pick up warm water vapour and to move upwards, while the cool high altitude air and condensed water come down again. Heat is carried upwards in a system similar to a heat pipe (used to cool CPUs) and the efficiency is proportional to the volume of air circulated in a given time, and the latent heat of the water circulated.

The blanket analogy is a very poor description of the situation because it completely ignores this balance between multiple heat transfer mechanisms. If the atmosphere sat in concentric rings made of solid air then the blanket analogy would make sense. Of course, even in this unrealistic scenario, “adding a blanket on top” would be equivalent to making the atmosphere thicker (it takes a big chunk of CO2 to make the atmosphere thicker).

Tel – Also, blankie’s don’t circulate in convection

Basicaly what you are saying is that by making the atmosphere warmer, there is more convection and it becomes cooler.
Oh Ermmm. But if that were the case, then the reason for the convection that initiated the cooling wouldn’t exist, ay. So how do you dopes conclude that the atmosphere cools? Why by presuming that it’s warming of course.

It’s not unusual in physics and engineering to meet an equilibrium between competing forces. You often find that A effects B by some mechanism and B effects A by another different mechanism. Arguing round and round the loop will not come to a solution for this kind of problem. This is what algebra was invented for. Some of these types of problem cannot be solved by algebra so numerical methods of successive approximation may be useful, and sometimes these methods will not converge (even when a solution does exist in the physical world). The remaining feedback problems (such as chaotic systems) are just difficult problems to solve. Don’t cry about it, have a blankie.

A commonly seen thermal equilibrium problem is a pot of water simmering on the stove. The water sits at boiling point, if you add more heat under the pot, the water still sits at boiling point but the pot boils faster. Keep adding heat under the pot and all you do is run out of water sooner.

The reason this happens is that the latent heat of the conversion from liquid water to gas comfortably eats all the available energy your stove can supply. It is like hitting a step function, the latent heat always wins.

May I recommend that we make an effort to get the kindergarden physics correct, before trying to take the next step?

Thank you to David Evans, Stewart Franks, William Kininmonth, Bob Carter, and Steve Fielding, for what you are all doing to challenge the Climate Change orthodoxy – and the Green fascism that goes with it. We are in your debt.

Where you get your patience from, Joanne, is a wonder. Those swimming in the kool-aid are beginning to get to me and I am usually unusually forgiving

I offered the John Nicol paper to a couple of sceptical scientists over two years ago. The first, labelling himself an atmospheric physicist, said “… and as there is a spelling mistake on page one why should I read any further?” (or such). The other? “What possessed this man to enter the climate arena is beyond me.”

This, as you well know, is what we are up against. The greatest sin of the last 100 years is mis-education. Without that we could all see through this febrile pantomime spontaneously, thoroughly and without guidance.

Alas, this is not so. We are an, albeit growing, outnumbered majority and I have to draw my strength from the extremely revealing opposition to, and ignorance of, the main unanswered question.

Instinctively I see 22ppmv as a very realistic baseline. Double it a couple of times and what do we get? Something equalling the gossamer tenuousness of bug’s and Daemon’s pleas IM(not so)HO.

A blanket warms by retaining heat underneath and is a broad band absorber/reflector of radiant energy, CO2 is a narrow band absorber/reflector. Even combined with the effects of water vapor, 2/3 of the energy passes by greenhouse gas molecules unaffected. This is a huge difference whose implications you don’t seem to understand. Even in the Venusian atmosphere, CO2 still acts as a narrow band reflector. Unlike air, clouds are a broadband reflector/absorber of infrared energy. If Venus had no clouds, it’s surface temperature would be significantly cooler. If anything, it’s a case of runaway cloud coverage. More importantly, it’s just too close to the Sun.

You seem to believe that energy is stored in the atmosphere as a sea of 15u photons passing between CO2 molecules. Yes, that will store energy in the atmosphere, but it will not heat it. This is one way to magically store energy that doesn’t result in heat, but is not what we observe. Almost anywhere you look and in every direction, the atmospheric absorption spectrum related to the 15u CO2 line is empty. Any 15u photons don’t last long enough to even be detected.

You seem to be confused about the implications of blocking energy in the way you suggest. Yes, it makes the surface look cooler from space, but has no actual surface temperature effect. The surface only becomes warmer if this captured energy is returned to the surface. Your mean free path argument is also meaningless since it’s only concerned with the mean free path of photons passing among CO2 molecules. Mean free path is an aggregate property that applies to a collection of molecules, not just a few selected molecules. As it applies to temperature, it means the average distance between collisions of molecules, not the collisions of photons with molecules.

Yes, the same heat transfer equation applies to a blanket, except that dQ/dt is dQ(v)/dt, where the energy is a distribution quantified by an approximate Plank distribution, the thermal conductivity, k(v), is also a function of wavelength and the complete answer requires integrating over wavelength. Wavelengths of energy that CO2 is not sensitive to simply pass on through, that is, k(v)=0 for all v that CO2 is not sensitive to.

Few, if any, 15u photons ever have a chance to escape. CO2 is has such a large capture cross section for 15u photons, that all it takes is a very low concentration for most of available 15u photons to be captured. The evidence showing little, it any, 15u energy in the atmosphere can only mean that this 15u surface energy has been converted to vibrational energy of the CO2 molecules, which is transferred to the rest of the atmosphere as heat.

BTW, your claim of no overlap between water vapor and CO2 is incorrect. There are very strong water vapor lines on one side of the 15u line which overlaps almost half of the spectrum captured by CO2. Here is a plot of the atmospheric absorption spectrum, along with some reference energy distributions and the energy distribution of the Earth, as seen from space. The absorption spectrum is color coded to show which gases are absorption which frequencies. This plot represents the nominal water content. The smaller spikes along the leading and trailing edges of the CO2 line are water vapor absorption lines. The color coding was determined by varying water from 1/2 nominal to 2x nominal and identifying the parts of the spectrum whose absorption increase exceeds a specified threshold.

Finally, if your hypothesis of water vapor amplifying CO2 changes is true, then all of the effect of this CO2, including all of is feedback effects should already be apparent, which it most certainly is not. Here is the average surface temperature data supplied by Hansen. You should note the
discontinuity around October 2001 (after 9/11). If you look at only global averages, it seems like a temperature increase, however, the discontinuity is documented as a change in processing and does not represent any kind of real change.

A slight correction to my previous post is that k(v) for v that CO2 doesn’t absorb is not 0, as 0 represents a perfect insulator, but in principle, the argument is correct.

The heat transfer equation is this,

dQ/dt = -kA dT/dx

where k is the thermal conductivity and A is the area, T is temperature and Q is energy. For the case of a blanket, k is small and mostly independent of frequency. dT/dx is the thermal gradient across the blanket and -dQ/dt is the rate of heat loss. Relative to GHG reflection, this is not really the appropriate equation to use, but it’s properties do illustrate a similar behavior.

CO2 is almost a perfect insulator of 15u photons. That is, for a hypothetical CO2 blanket, the equivalent thermal conductivity of the blanket (k) is very low for 11% of the surface energy and is very high for the other 89% of the energy. To the extent that absorbed energy is transformed into thermal energy (a necessary requirement for atmospheric heating), the absorbed energy is re-emitted as a broad spectrum of energy, only 11% of which is subject to further CO2 reflection. In pass 1, 11% of the energy is retained, in pass2, 89% of the retained energy is allowed to pass, resulting in retention of only 11% of the original 11%. In the next pass even more energy passes through the CO2 gauntlet. The result is that it only takes a couple of passes for most of the energy reflected by CO2 to be emitted out into space.

In practice, there’s no difference between energy reflected by CO2 or energy reflected by water vapor. In this case, 33% of the total surface energy is retained in each pass. After only 5 passes, all except less than 0.5% of the energy absorbed in the first pass has found it’s way off of the planet.

For those who still don’t believe in the validity of the transformation of energy frequencies, consider the radiation from the Sun. This is mostly in the visible spectrum, yet when it’s re-emitted by the Earth, the frequency spectrum is shifted down in, whose average is proportional to the ratio between the surface area of the Earth and the area of the circle over which the energy arrived (a factor of 4 difference in energy). Of course, the lack of detectable 15u photons in the atmosphere is another strong indicator.

Tel – In the case of the atmosphere, the cooling effect of convection becomes increasingly efficient, as the warming effect of the “greenhouse effect” becomes stronger.

Convection does not change the planetary heat balance. In order for convection to account for the current warming, even a significant fraction of it, one would need frequent hurricane force winds over the entire planet. The calculation was done in the 19th century, and verified uncounted times since then. Mainstream science looks to radiative transfer for the explanation. IR escapes the atmosphere using a radiative “window” that the earth employs to radiate away surface heat.

Tel continues – This is because capture of infra-red close to the earth’s surface casts a shadow on the high atmosphere preventing the capture of infra-red higher up

Infrared casts – a shadow

Tel continues – The blanket analogy is a very poor description of the situation because it completely ignores this balance between multiple heat transfer mechanisms. If the atmosphere sat in concentric rings made of solid air then the blanket analogy would make sense.

Insulation is accomplished the same way. By re-radiating the radiation back down toward the person under the blanket. This is exactly the same way as the surface of the earth is warmed.

Tel says – Of course, even in this unrealistic scenario, “adding a blanket on top” would be equivalent to making the atmosphere thicker (it takes a big chunk of CO2 to make the atmosphere thicker).

Uh no, all it takes is adding additional GHG to the atmosphere. As this happens the radiative “window” further closes as more GHG is added.

Tel continues – It’s not unusual in physics and engineering to meet an equilibrium between competing forces. You often find that A effects B by some mechanism and B effects A by another different mechanism. Arguing round and round the loop will not come to a solution for this kind of problem.

So Tel, the planet has never seen an ice age then. Competing forces cancelled each other out. Any warming caused cooling, and any cooling caused warming, so the earth over its history has maintained a nice steady equilibrium temperature.

Please Tel. I can hardly take you seriously at this point.

Feedback is a function of displacement. It is a property of nature that restoring forces can never exceed a force causing a displacement. You can not push a stable system and have a feedback bigger than the displacement force. In the context of our discussion, basic physical laws make cooling or no temperature change in an enhanced GHG atmosphere impossible.

So, what evidence do we have that global temperature increases are exactly countered by feedback loops? Clearly there are none. This is made spectacularly obvious by the fact that we observe long period changes in temperature. If feedback loops were exactly countering temperature changes as children like Tel claim, no temperature fluctuations would be seen.

[I've deleted the dismissive, irrelevant, mocking tones... I don't want to edit your posts. But as someone who has variously claimed embarrassingly "correlation is evidence of causation", who thinks R2 values prove something definitive, got things wildly wrong, you are not qualified to mock. - JoNova]

“[Deleted. 'bugs' lift your standards... in order to hold a meaningful discussion we need people to back up their baseless claims... otherwise they are just time-wasters. Either post evidence, admit you can't, or use your full name.]”

Quite simply because the more CO2 you add, the shorter the mean free path the photons take to escape. The shorter the mean free path, the better the insulation. It’s a diffusive walk. You can’t saturate anything. The more material you have, the more backscatter you get.

The above does not provide an answer to George’s question.

Let’s suppose the “diffusive walk” model were true, the end result would be that for every 100 photons leaving the earth’s surface some number X would make it all the way through and exit into space, some number (100-X) would return to earth and be reabsorbed. There’s nothing else that can happen in the “diffusive walk” scenario. Changing the properties of the “diffusive” medium would change the resulting number X.

Both the photons leaving into space and the photons returning to earth are perfectly Enthalpy preserving — thus your entire “diffusive walk” model of the atmosphere is perfectly Enthalpy preserving. Daemon, would you like to go on record as claiming that “greenhouse effect” capture of infra-red is really an Enthalpy preserving process?

[...] a couple of weeks now as the Rudd Labor Government tries to pass its emissions trading legislation. Joanne Nova has reported on the Senator’s meeting with Minister Penny Wong. Then there has been several [...]

I was referring to the attitude. Names I don’t care about, I don’t know what the issue is with them.

‘Bugs’ – people who post with real names take more care with their posts. They know that their in-laws, bosses, or future business partners may google and find that say, 3 years ago they were utter fruit-loops who made rude impertinent requests, used flawed reasoning, or doggedly defended something that turned out to be a scam… Pseudonyms with no connection to reality are free to be rude and waste our time. We don’t need them in this discussion. People who are here to learn about the climate or learn about the current state of science or politics will be happy when someone takes the time to politely answer a question. They might even say ‘thanks’. Someone who wants to waste time, puts up pointless links with impertinent demands for us to read it, chases rabbits down irrelevant holes, and makes repeated baseless assertions. Since you don’t qualify to post here I’m being considerate and giving you a chance to show you are genuine or well informed.

Provide links to specific papers, admit you can’t or state your name.”

are you also supposing it isn’t? By the way, it is the processes that causes light, generated in the core of the sun, to take roughly 100,000 years to make its way to the sun’s photosphere

Tel – the end result would be that for every 100 photons leaving the earth’s surface some number X would make it all the way through and exit into space some number (100-X) would return to earth and be reabsorbed.

Yes, IR photons aren’t just being absorbed, they are being absorbed and re-radiated.
50% of the time back toward the surface of the earth. Each photon does a random walk, up, down, up, up, down, up down, down, up.. etc. Light carries momentum hence with each absorption of any photon by a molecule produces heat. (The manifestation of heat is coincident with the absorption). Eventually it reaches a high enough altitude that it is no longer absorbed. In every case, CO2 backscatter increases the amount of those photons reflected back toward the earth’s surface.

I suppose to the lay person it’s like having a puck drop on the price is right, sometimes the puck strikes a peg and goes left, and sometimes it goes right. If all the pegs are equally weighted, then you get a nice Gaussian distribution of pucks along the bottom of the board. But give the pegs a 5% bias to the left and you can shift the distribution arbitrarily far to the left simply by expanding the depth of the peg board and increasing the number of pegs struck.

A 5% bias over 10 pegs gives a 60 percent cumulative compounded bias.

Backscattering is like that. A slight increase in bias of the backscatter probability has a non-linear compounding effect. That’s why adding another sheet to your bed keeps you warmer while not at all changing the amount of heat absorbed by the lower layers.

Tel says – would you like to go on record as claiming that “greenhouse effect” capture of infra-red is really an Enthalpy preserving process?

Tel – I think you are going to need to include some kinetic energy in the picture.

Well sure, some energy is converted to kinetic energy by intermolecular collisions. But those molecules will bounce about and convert their energy back to thermal radiation in the same spectral region that they absorbed earlier. That energy will be radiated in a random direction – down 50% of the time. In addition some energy in the band will leak in from up conversion and down conversion either through thermal broadening or direct electron state pumping or cascade emission.

Tel continues – There’s no particular reason to presume that the infra red emission comes from the same atom or molecule (or even the same chemical) as where the energy was absorbed.

I assure you CO2 can emit (but not always) at the same energy it absorbs, and other gasses can emit into the frequency range that CO2 absorbs. If this weren’t the case, then the spectral lines for CO2 would be absolutely black – zero radiation emitted at those frequencies.

Tel continues – I accept your point that the 2LOT applies on the macroscopic scale (i.e. the average of many interactions) rather than the quantum scale, but your random-walk model forces constant Enthalpy at both macroscopic and quantum scale. Such a model is wrong by definition.

Uh well, consider the IR scattering nature of the Solar Atmosphere. Photons are so highly scattered that it takes them 100,000 years to reach the surface of the sun. Yet the surface of the sun still produces IR (heat). It just takes longer to get out and in the case of the sun, keeps the interior temperature at several million ‘K

George – For those who still don’t believe in the validity of the transformation of energy frequencies, consider the radiation from the Sun. This is mostly in the visible spectrum, yet when it’s re-emitted by the Earth, the frequency spectrum is shifted down in

true but not always as sometimes it’s up converted. Emission bands are also broadened thermally. Same deal with higher frequency radiation. So the absorption region is partially filled back in. Spectroscopically speaking you see a nice absorption spectra, but in terms of heat retention, the more CO2 you add, the more light you backscatter downward, and as all of the energy eventually downgrades to heat, there is always a source of photons to backscatter. Ta da!

The paper, “Have changes in ocean heat falsified the global warming hypothesis?” was written by William DiPuccio at one time a weather forecaster for the U.S. Navy, and a Meteorological/Radiosonde Technician for the National Weather Service. More recently, he served as head of the science department for St. Nicholas Orthodox School in Akron, Ohio (closed in 2006). He continues to write science curriculum, publish articles, and conduct science camps.

Here is his Conclusion:

Though other criteria, such as climate sensitivity (Spencer, Lindzen), can be used to test the AGW hypothesis, ocean heat has one main advantage: Simplicity. While work on climate sensitivity certainly needs to continue, it requires more complex observations and hypotheses making verification more difficult. Ocean heat touches on the very core of the AGW hypothesis: When all is said and done, if the climate system is not accumulating heat, the hypothesis is invalid.

Writing in 2005, Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al. suggested that GISS model projections had been verified by a solid decade of increasing ocean heat (1993 to 2003). This was regarded as further confirmation the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis. Their expectation was that the earth’s climate system would continue accumulating heat more or less monotonically. Now that heat accumulation has stopped (and perhaps even reversed), the tables have turned. The same criteria used to support their hypothesis, is now being used to falsify it.

It is evident that the AGW hypothesis, as it now stands, is either false or fundamentally inadequate. One may argue that projections for global warming are measured in decades rather than months or years, so not enough time has elapsed to falsify this hypothesis. This would be true if it were not for the enormous deficit of heat we have observed. In other words, no matter how much time has elapsed, if a projection misses its target by such a large magnitude (6x to 8x), we can safely assume that it is either false or seriously flawed.

Assuming the hypothesis is not false, its proponents must now address the failure to skillfully project heat accumulation. Theories pass through stages of development as they are tested against observations. It is possible that the AGW hypothesis is not false, but merely oversimplified. Nevertheless, any refinements must include causal mechanisms which are testable and falsifiable. Arm waiving and ad hoc explanations (such as large margins of error) are not sufficient.

One possibility for the breakdown may relate back to climate sensitivity. It is assumed that most feedbacks are positive, amplifying the slight warming (.3º-1.2ºC) caused by CO2. This may only be partially correct. Perhaps these feedbacks undergo quasi-cyclical changes in tandem with natural fluctuations in climate. The net result might be a more punctuated increase in heat accumulation with possible reversals, rather than a monotonic increase. The outcome would be a much slower rate of warming than currently projected. This would make it difficult to isolate and quantify anthropogenic forcing against the background noise of natural climate signals.

On the other hand, the current lapse in heat accumulation demonstrates a complete failure of the AGW hypothesis to account for natural climate variability, especially as it relates to ocean cycles (PDO, AMO, etc.). If anthropogenic forcing from GHG can be overwhelmed by natural fluctuations (which themselves are not fully understood), or even by other types of anthropogenic forcing, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that the IPCC models have little or no skill in projecting global and regional climate change on a multi-decadal scale. Dire warnings about “runaway warming” and climate “tipping points” cannot be taken seriously. A complete rejection of the hypothesis, in its current form, would certainly be warranted if the ocean continues to cool (or fails to warm) for the next few years.

Whether the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis is invalid or merely incomplete, the time has come for serious debate and reanalysis. Since Dr. Pielke first published his challenge in 2007, no critical attempts have been made to explain these failed projections. His blogs have been greeted by the chirping of crickets. In the mean time costly political agendas focused on carbon mitigation continue to move forward, oblivious to recent empirical evidence. Open and honest debate has been marginalized by appeals to consensus. But as history has often shown, consensus is the last refuge of poor science.

I was just wondering… is it usual to be a guest at a senator senator meeting and then blog about the whole thing. Is there not some sort of protocol about not having senators feel they can;t be open and frank at such meetings? It does seem rather strange to me and if I was Wong I’d expect more, and if I was Fielding I’d worry it had cost me some trust.

They are discussing the evidence and reasons for a massive shift in direction for the Australian nation. Is there something that either party should need to hide?

Is there a more open, public place for this meeting to occur? Was there a televised debate (did I miss it)? As a citizen, where can I ask these questions AND get answers from Penny Wong?

Which journalist has pinned down our reps and asked them to name the evidence, and find the paper. Which reporter in Australia is familiar enough with the science to be able to ask those questions and not be fobbed off with “NOAA said so”? (Nod Nod – how do you spell NOAA?).

The ALP wanted to ram through the legislation. This meeting was the only chance Fielding had to ask the question – he was open to being convinced – Wong’s team knew he was bringing advisers to help him make sense of the replies and frame his replies to their replies… and everyone knew that Wong wanted to convince him.

It’s just democracy and transparency in government.

If Wong et al had had good answers they would have been thrilled for Fielding to release their answers to the world.

Please cite a reference for your belief that delaying photons from leaving the atmosphere causes it to heat up. Your model would suggest that if I put a light source in a mirrored box, the inside of the box will get brighter and brighter over time. Just to help me put this in terms you might be able to understand, could you tell me what your specific educational background in science is?

You can use Enthalpy to work out the mechanical energy in a piston caused by expansion in a gas, but it can be more broadly applied than that. For my purpose, I don’t need any real numbers, I’m only establishing a boundary criteria so I’m only asking whether the delta-Enthalpy (i.e. change in Enthalpy) is zero.

Consider an abstract energy transport/conversion system. Energy goes in one end, Energy comes out the other, and we are in steady state equilibrium so the total energy flow must balance. Sum total of energy IN must equal sum total of energy OUT, energy cannot be created or destroyed. However, in terms of the energy that can be usefully extracted to do some real work, it does not have to balance, indeed in any realistic scenario it will NOT balance.

So let’s look at a more specific example of an energy transport system which is an electrical cable and electrical energy goes into one end of the cable and out the other end. Suppose the cable is some sort of superconducting material that can perfectly deliver 100% of the input energy — we conclude that the delta-Enthalpy term is exactly zero.

But what if the cable is made of copper? Not a perfect conductor so there will be “loss” of energy from the electrical circuit. I’ve already said that it is in steady state and Energy cannot be created or destroyed so the system as a whole cannot possibly “lose” Energy, but heating in the cable will dissipate into the surroundings, and thus be unrecoverable. Once dissipated, although this Energy still exists in the physical world, even a godlike super-engineer cannot put it back into the electrical circuit. It has been “lost” in the sense that it is no longer in any usable form that can do work.

Are we both happy so far? Nothing controversial yet?

Right, back to the copper cable. We could put the cable in a box of gas and calculate the expansion of the gas due to heat and work out the delta-Enthalpy term by a long process, as per steam engine design. We could take a short cut and just say that if the electrical energy input and electrical energy output are not equal then whatever is the difference must be an Enthalpy term so delta-Enthalpy is a non-zero positive number which accounts for the “lost” Energy term (delta-Enthalpy has the same units as Energy, or divide everything by time and use Power if that works better for you, same diff).

I know this is hand-waving, I’m not going to do a worked example with real numbers here, I’d be very surprised if there isn’t examples in textbooks and stuff. Like I said, I’m establishing a boundary criteria here.

You could divide the delta-Enthalpy term by temperature to get a delta-Entropy term but for the electrical example you have to come up with an equivalent temperature for electricity, for radiation examples you have to come up with an equivalent temperature for radiation, let’s not actually take that step, other than to understand that the calculation could be done. If the delta-Enthalpy is zero, then converting to Entropy at any temperature still gives zero, likewise a positive delta-Enthalpy implies positive delta-Entropy term regardless of temperature.

All energy transport systems currently known to humans have a “loss” factor in them somewhere. If you use a mechanical drive train then USEFUL Energy is lost to friction (even though total system Energy still comes to a perfect balance). If you use steam in a pipe then you get turbulence in the pipe, shock waves around corners, leakage of heat through the side of the pipe, etc. There is always “loss”, just like in the copper cable.

This loss must result in a delta-Enthalpy term, because it all comes down to thermodynamics in the long run. One small irrevocable step towards the heat death of the universe.

Finally, getting to your random walk model for radiation “scattering” in the atmosphere (in the form of absorption and re-emission). You build in an implicit assumption that the delta-Enthalpy term of your entire system is zero. You have a model of the superconducting cable, not the copper cable. I don’t accept that as a realistic model because other energy transport systems do not behave this way, and because the 2LOT is known to be generally applicable.

Please cite a reference for your belief that delaying photons from leaving the atmosphere causes it to heat up. Your model would suggest that if I put a light source in a mirrored box, the inside of the box will get brighter and brighter over time. Just to help me put this in terms you might be able to understand, could you tell me what your specific educational background in science is?

It is a well known fact, accepted by skecptics including Pat Michaels and Roy Spencer. It is the mechanism by which the greenhouse effect works, and it does not make the earth hotter and hotter, he did not claim that. He just said it makes it a bit warmer, till a new state of equilibrium is reached.

One of the points that Dr. Richard Lindzen made during his keynote speech at the 2nd International Conference on Climate Change, held in New York City March 8-10 this year, is that we global warming skeptics need to be careful about what aspects of the theory of manmade global warming we dispute.

And I fully agree.

In an e-mail I just responded to this evening, I once again found myself defending the existence of the Earth’s “greenhouse effect”. I’m talking about the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, not mankind’s small enhancement of it. And it’s amazing how many scientists, let alone lay people, dispute its existence.

I’ll admit I used to question it, too. So, many years ago Danny Braswell and I built our own radiative transfer model to demonstrate for ourselves that the underlying physics were sound.

To briefly review: because water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere stays warmer in the lower atmosphere and cooler in the upper atmosphere than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect.

Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket, which we all know tends to hold heat in where it is being generated, and reduce its flow toward the colder surroundings. A blanket – real or greenhouse — doesn’t actually create the separation between hot and cold…it just reduces the rate at which energy is lost by the hot, and gained by the cold.

In the case of the Earth, most sunlight is absorbed at the surface, which then heats and moistens the air above it. This solar heating causes the lower atmosphere to warm, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor thus generated helps keep the lower atmosphere warm by reducing its rate of cooling. (Long before radiation can make the surface too warm, though, convective air currents kick in…e.g. thunderstorms…and transport much of the excess heat from the lower to the upper atmosphere. As a result, the lower atmosphere never gets as warm as the greenhouse effect ‘wants’ to make it.)

So where do the objections to the “greenhouse effect” come in?

IT’S NOT A REAL GREENHOUSE
The processes involved in the atmospheric greenhouse effect are not the same as what happens in a real greenhouse. Yes, we all know that, but the misnomer has stuck, and it is not going away anytime soon. A real greenhouse physically traps warm air, preventing convective air currents from carrying warm air out of the greenhouse, which would then be replaced by cooler air coming into the greenhouse. In contrast, the infrared atmospheric greenhouse effect instead slows the rate at which the atmosphere cools radiatively, not convectively.

IT VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
A second objection has to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is claimed that since the greenhouse effect depends partly upon cooler upper layers of the atmosphere emitting infrared radiation toward the warmer, lower layers of the atmosphere, that this violates the 2nd Law, which (roughly speaking) says that energy must flow from warmer objects to cooler objects, not the other way around.

There are different ways to illustrate why this is not a valid objection. First of all, the 2nd Law applies to the behavior of whole systems, not to every part within a system, and to all forms of energy involved in the system…not just its temperature. And in the atmosphere, temperature is only one component to the energy content of an air parcel.

Secondly, the idea that a cooler atmospheric layer can emit infrared energy toward a warmer atmospheric layer below it seems unphysical to many people. I suppose this is because we would not expect a cold piece of metal to transfer heat into a warm piece of metal. But the processes involved in conductive heat transfer are not the same as in radiative heat transfer. A hot star out in space will still receive, and absorb, radiant energy from a cooler nearby star…even though the NET flow of energy will be in the opposite direction.

In other words, a photon being emitted by the cooler star doesn’t stick its finger out to see how warm the surroundings are before it decides to leave.

Furthermore, we should not confuse a reduced rate of cooling with heating. Imagine you have a jar of boiling hot water right next to a jar of warm water sitting on the counter. The boiling hot jar will cool rapidly, while the warm jar will cool more slowly. Eventually, both jars will achieve the same temperature, just as the 2nd Law predicts.

I know what it means to be turned off by a paper after the first few sentences. Many of the AGW promoting papers (Hansen’s in particular) start something to the effect of, “According to our models which assume anthropogenic forcing …”.

It wouldn’t surprise me if NASA has been a public P.R. Department of
the CIA/NSA from the day of its inception. Everything concerning Mars
can then be found back under the file OPERATION DUNE. It may sound
silly, but …. In the sixties the public was suddenly presented with a
Dune Buggy on the basis of a Volkswagen Beetle … with which people
who were totally hyped up of the Moon-landing, could replay this on
their favorite beach. Not much later a complete arsenal of Cult movies
was launched, under the name … ‘Dune’ …

Well, the story of Dune is indeed happening in the Desert, where a
giant worm is sliding through the sand, and leaves behind a thing
called ‘spice’ (ehh worm faeces?), which means life and food for the
people trying to survive. This worm is then declared holy inside the ‘Dune’
cult series.

Here’s the conspiracy : There’s two factions : People who promote the
Desert culture, and people who want to see plants and nature and thus
don’t need that big worm anymore. My perception is that life on Mars is
determined by these ‘Dune’ worms (if there is life on Mars), where on
planet Earth we are still independent.

The battle we are waging today is to prevent Desertification from
happening. This looks like a impossible task, most certainly now Al
Gore has started his ‘Global Warming’ campaign, where CO2 has to
disappear from our atmosphere …

One of the many innocent victims of todays education is of course
Biology class. Who would know today that in order to grow plants and
crops ABOVE the ground, one needs CO2 in the atmosphere and :

If there already are underground life-communities, one can locate these
by localizing its air flows; where air is entering the ground and where
air is flowing out of the ground. What one has todo is to measure the
concentration of CO2 entering the ground and of air which reappears
into the atmosphere.

If the CO2 concentration in the air which enters our atmosphere is
SMALLER as of the air going into the ground, then someone is tanking
CO2 underground, in order to, of course, grow fruits and vegetables there.

What Al Gore is doing now, with his Global Warming campaign, is
to declare that the process of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere
is a normal thing todo. What many don’t seem to know or realize is that
CO2 capture from the atmosphere has as hard consequence, that
our nature will disappear from the Earth’s surface.

Conclusion, Al Gore seems to be a big fan of Dune worms. But who
has ever seen such a worm slide through the Desert? Not me! So the
entire Gore campaign is in fact meant to transform our planet Earth
into Mars version II. The entire Matrix trilogy is closely dough-tailing
with this, the Nazi Black Sun ideology ditto. Further the observation
that there’s quite a number of New Age ‘specialists’ out there, who
denounce Sun-worshipers as being of the devil.

Spencer only says that greenhouse gases have an effect on the climate and I fully agree. Your explanation that the greenhouse effect is 15u photons bouncing between CO2 molecules, like photons in the core of the Sun, is what I’m disputing. The fact that the atmosphere is not a high density super heated plasma not withstanding, my question was how does 15u photons bouncing between CO2 molecules heat the rest of the atmosphere?

As I’ve stated in an earlier post, in order for the 15u energy to heat the atmosphere, kinetic energy must be transfered to the other gas molecules. These other gas molecules are transparent to 15u photons and this transfer can only be by collision, which for CO2, is >99.9% more likely to be with something other than another CO2 molecule. Now I agree that if a CO2 molecule happened to emit a 15u photon, another CO2 molecule will capture it, but if this is the only mechanism, no heat will ever enter the atmosphere.

George the 15 micrometer radiation cannot be detected directly. I have written elsewhere about the possiblity of indirect detection, it would require a massive effort, probably no one will carry it out.

I was a bit doubltful about Fielding’s position, but I have to say that Joanne, through a personal email, removed misgivings I had about him and what he stood for.

The paper was published in Comptes Rendus Geosciences Volume 340, Issue 7, July 2008, Pages 421-430.

It is written by a team of scientists headed by the distinguished French Geophysicist, Professor Vincent Courtillot, who is Professor of Geophysics at the University of Paris (Denis Diderot) and Director of the Institut de Physique du Globe in Paris.

The paper is a significant contribution to our understanding of the natural periodicities of our planet’s climate dynamics, which we are now experiencing, and further evidence that Ockham’s razor is needed to shave away the curious IPCC hypothesis of human-induced global warming.

Prof Courtillot and his team have also published a significant paper that identifies another way that the cosmic ray-climate link works. Broadly speaking, Prof Courtillot points out that the Earth’s magnetic dipole wanders about (this is well established). When the the magnetic poles are in more humid areas of the globe – as he demonstrates they are from time to time – more cosmic rays will get into those areas since the magnetic poles funnel the cosmic rays (as well as solar plasma I would note); by this means more clouds will form, etc.

Abstract of his new paper, “Evidence for a solar signature in 20th-century temperature data from the USA and Europe”.

“We analyze temperature data from meteorological stations in the USA (six climatic regions, 153 stations), Europe (44 stations, considered as one climatic region) and Australia (preliminary, five stations). We select stations with long, homogeneous series of daily minimum temperatures (covering most of the 20th century, with few or no gaps).We find that station data are well correlated over distances in the order of a thousand kilometres. When an average is calculated for each climatic region, we find well characterized mean curves with strong variability in the 3–15-year period range and a superimposed decadal to centennial (or ‘secular’) trend consisting of a small number of linear segments separated by rather sharp changes in slope.

Our overall curve for the USA rises sharply from 1910 to 1940, then decreases until 1980 and rises sharply again since then. The minima around 1920 and 1980 have similar values, and so do the maxima around 1935 and 2000; the range between minima and maxima is 1.3 8C. The European mean curve is quite different, and can be described as a step- like function with zero slope and a 1 8C jump occurring in less than two years around 1987. Also notable is a strong (cold) minimum in 1940. Both the USA and the European mean curves are rather different from the corresponding curves illustrated in the 2007 IPCC report. We then estimate the long-term behaviour of the higher frequencies (disturbances) of the temperature series by calculating the mean- squared interannual variations or the ‘lifetime’ (i.e. the mean duration of temperature disturbances) of the data series. We find that the resulting curves correlate remarkably well at the longer periods, within and between regions. The secular trend of all of these curves is similar (an S-shaped pattern), with a rise from 1900 to 1950, a decrease from 1950 to 1975, and a subsequent (small) increase. This trend is the same as that found for a number of solar indices, such as sunspot number or magnetic field components in any observatory. We conclude that significant solar forcing is present in temperature disturbances in the areas we analyzed and conjecture that this should be a global feature.”

Excellent article, thanks. As at least one other Brit has pointed out, we in the UK do not even get the chance to debate the issue with politicians. All senior members of Labour and the Tory and LibDem opposition are all members of Al Gore’s church. Fortunately there are a handful of backbenchers (well at least two) from the Tory Party that are realists.

Now they are pushing ocean temperatures perhaps we will find a hot spot mid depth near the equator!

What the Wong-fielding meeting appears to have done is expose the Govt’s lack of a “basic laws of physics/chemistry” explanation of how more CO2 drives global warming/climate change. (Maybe that is the e-mail that is really missing!). Shouldn’t Rudd/Wong et al be embarrassed at being exposed as perpetrators of a fraud/scam? A rational Govt would abandon any form of carbon tax.
The scientific/economic expertise at the Govt’s disposal should be redirected to finding the real causes of climate change and devising ways to live with it. The lawyer/politicians need to give the oratory a rest and get in touch with the facts. The media need to find some real pictures of “CO2 pollution” as opposed to their stock footage of power station cooling towers belching steam.

For me, all the graphs and statistical ‘trends’ are irrelevant to the question of whether ‘manmade’ CO2 is causing significant atmospheric warming because the concentration of that CO2 is so low that it is physically impossible for it to cause significant heating.

The ‘manmade’ CO2 is one particle in ten thousand in the atmosphere. This is equivalent to one penny out of 100 US dollars. Try to imagine that one particle transferring measureable amounts of heat to the other 9,999 particles – while all of the other particles are each doing their own thing. The CO2 would have to be at many thousands of degrees to be able to accomplish this. It isn’t, and it can’t.

Manmade global warming through the influence of increased CO2 is therefore not a reasonable scientific hypothesis. Anyone who asserts that it is, is either ignornant of basic physics, or intentionally defrauding the public.

All the committees, politicians, and PhDs in the world don’t mean a thing if there is no physical method by which CO2 can accomplish the heat transfer.

What a terrible waste of public resources and political will!

This Children’s Crusade has gone on far enough. Before science and scientists are completely discredited in the public mind, won’t real scientists please stand together and expose this fraud?

One rason I put quotes around ‘manmade’ CO2, is that we don’t actually know that it is from burning fossil fuel burning, or how much of it is. The Earth leaks methane and other hydrocarbons. No one has ever measured the amount – although speculative estimates exist. This natural carbon source will have roughly the same isotopic signature as hydrocarbon fossil fuels, since that is exactly what it is – and therefore they are indistinguishable.

I have to wonder if the Earth’s biosphere doesn’t rapidly absorb most additional CO2, and if therefore the increase may be due to an increasing rate of natural emmissions.

And of course, there is another argument about whether hydrocarbon sources are actually ‘fossil’ fuels. There is pretty good evidence that they are not.

But the basic question is whether one particle out of ten thousand in the atmosphere can significantly heat the other 9,999 without itself being at an extreme temperature. I don’t know of any physical process that would permit this.

“If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.” If man is having an influence on the climate, it certainly isn’t through increased CO2, which is such an insignificant percentange of the atmosphere it can’t have a measureable effect on global temperature.

AGW (Anthropgenic Gobal Warming) is a romantic notion that has gotten way out of hand. It is not in any way a scientific theory, since it contradicts the basic laws of physics.

No, I don’t work for an oil company, and I don’t beat my dog. The Climate Change scare actually benefits my document imaging business, at least theoretically. But a vote for AGW is a vote to preserve and extend poverty, especially in the Third World. And in any case, it is so patently absurd a notion, so obviously physically impossible, that it just makes the people who promote it look like arrogant simpletons.

I know and love people who passionately believe in this ‘hypothesis’ and I do not appreciate seeing their sincere care and concern for the world and its environment misused by others who either should or do know better.

Another paper published in a peer reviewed prestigious scientific journal (Journal of Geophysical Research) presents evidence of the dominant role of the Sun in regulating our climate and of the subtle influence of the solar system on the Sun and thereby our climate

Here is a very interesting paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year the citation of which is: Zanchettin, D., A. Rubino, P. Traverso, and M. Tomasino (2008), “Impact of variations in solar activity on hydrological decadal patterns in northern Italy”, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D12102, doi:10.1029/2007JD009157.

Here are the authors’ conclusions:

The modulation of regional precipitation and Po River discharge documented in this study indicates that variations in solar activity do appear to be correlated with hydrological decadal patterns for northern Italy, which generally consists of wet and dry periods alternating in accordance with polarized sunspot cycles (Hale cycles).

Interestingly, the solar signature on Po River discharges appears to have been highly significant since the late 1800s (specifically since 1890), i.e., well before the onset of sunspots hyperactivity in the middle 1900s. In fact, north Italian hydrological patterns are significantly correlated under weak sunspot activity (specifically between 1910 and 1955) with parameters of the Sun’s orbital motion, specifically with the time derivative of the solar angular momentum (tau) which is thought to modulate the strength of the solar wind as well as sunspot dynamics under weak sunspot activity. The hypothesis that the mechanism of solar forcing involves both the magnetic activity of sunspots and the Sun’s orbital dynamics seems corroborated by the detection of consistent solar signals in the NAO, which is assessed to significantly correlate with both the Sun and the decadal variability of the north Italian climate. In particular, positive (negative) NAO anomalies are associated to comparatively lower (higher) Po River discharges. At decadal timescales, periods when the NAO is correlated with t apparently alternate with periods when the NAO is correlated with the Earth’s geomagnetic activity (GA), which closely follows sunspot activity. This behaviour seems to be regulated by the strength of sunspot activity, so that under periods of quiet sunspot activity a weakening of the GA-NAO connection as well as a reinforcement of the tau-NAO correlation is observed.

Consistently, the strength of solar activity apparently modulates the connection between the NAO and Po River discharge. This latter hypothesis seems supported by the synchrony between the intensification/attenuation of solar activity and apparent changes in the connection between the NAO and Po River discharge detected around 1890 and 1955.

Here is the authors’ Abstract:

Using spectral and statistical analyses of discharges and basin average precipitation rates acquired over the Po River since the early 1800s, we investigate the impact of variations in solar activity on hydrological decadal patterns over northern Italy. Wet and dry periods appear to alternate in accordance with polarized sunspot cycles.

Intriguingly, a solar signature on Po River discharges is detected to be highly significant since the late 1800s, before the onset of sunspots hyperactivity established by the middle 1900s. In particular, observed hydrological patterns over northern Italy are significantly correlated, under periods of quiet sunspot activity, with parameters characterizing the Sun’s orbital motion, specifically with the time derivative of the solar angular momentum (tau) which is thought to modulate the strength of the solar wind and sunspot dynamics under weak sunspot activity. The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is detected as potential link between the Sun and Po River discharges, since it is significantly correlated with both solar activity and the decadal variability in the north Italian climate. In particular, positive (negative) NAO anomalies, which are associated with comparatively lower (higher) Po River discharges, are assessed to alternatively correlate at decadal timescales either with tau or with the Earth’s geomagnetic activity (GA), which closely follows sunspot activity. This changing correlation seems to be regulated by the strength of sunspot activity: under periods of quiet sunspot activity, a weakening of the GA-NAO connection and a reinforcement of the tau – NAO connection is observed. In this sense, the strength of solar activity apparently modulates the connection between the NAO and Po River discharges.

“Over 2003–2008, the GRACE-based ocean mass has increased at an average rate of ∼1.9 mm/yr (if we take the upper range of possible GIA corrections as recommended by Peltier, submitted for publication). Such a rate agrees well with the sum of land ice plus land water contributions (i.e., GRACE-based ice sheet mass balance estimated in this study, GRACE-based land waters plus recently published estimates for the current glacier contribution). These results in turn offer constraints on the ocean mass GIA correction, as well as on the glacier melting contribution.”

The authors also note that since 2006 the rate of increase seems to have plateauxed, an observation since confirmed by others.

“Global averages of tide data, after correcting for the effects of post glacial rebound on individual station records, reveal an increase in sea level over the last 80 years of between 1.1mm/yr and 1.9mm/yr, …. with a preferred value of 1.75mm/yr.”

The value of approx 1.9mm/yr accords with other estimate published around that time.

The conclusion from these published papers, both rigorous and definitive, is that the rate of increase of the ocean mass has been constant for over 100 years at approximately 1.9mm/yr.

If the ocean mass has been increasing at the constant rate of approximately 1.9mm/yr for the last 100 years, its temperature cannot have been increasing at an increasing rate as the IPCC hypothesised. This is because warmer water occupies a greater volume that cooler water, other things being equal. Hence there is no trace of any increased temperature in the total mass of the oceans that could be attributable to AWG as the IPCC hypothesised.

In response to Senator Fielding the Government stressed that ocean warming is the best test of the IPCC AWG hypothesis and that time periods of 50 years or longer are required to discern long term trends in climate with confidence.

Throughout the past 100 years AWG has been increasing but ocean temperatures have been rising at a tiny constant rate of 1.9mm/yr which is entirely attributable to non AWG variables.

The Government’s nominated test of the basis for the cap and trade bill shows clearly that there is no empirical basis for the bill.

Perhaps you could explain why David Evans, who has a PHD in electrical engineering but only an undergraduate science degree plus no experience working as a scientist claims to be a scientist. As you both work for ScienceSpeak I’m sure you can provide an answer but quite frankly I don’t understand it.

There will be a protest in Canberra against the ETS on the 13th August. It is being organised by the Climate Sceptics Party.
Details can be found here: http://agmates.ning.com/events/protest-against-the-ets-in
Speakers will include our party members, Barnaby Joyce etc. Any other organisation that opposes the ETS/CPRS are invited to join us in our attempt to alert the parliament and the public to the evils of this legislation.

Perhaps you could explain why David Evans, who has a PHD in electrical engineering but only an undergraduate science degree plus no experience working as a scientist claims to be a scientist. As you both work for ScienceSpeak I’m sure you can provide an answer but quite frankly I don’t understand it.

As far as I’m concerned, science is the practice of the scientific method. Science is not the award of certificates or honorific titles. Science is not bound by any particular job vocation, amateur science is equally valid to professional science. The great days of Victorian science were mostly amateur science. Our grasping at certificates and job opportunities is a modern fixation, born of middle class poverty and short horizons.

We are not even serious about taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions anyway in Australia. If we were we would be starting up a nuclear power industry, stop using coal and aim to meet our emissions reduction targets through technology, not via a tax.

The reality is that the proponents of an ETS are ,with a 95% probability, unable to explain, in terms of the quantified application of basic laws of physics/chemistry, how more atmospheric CO2 drives global warming/climate change. Hence they can’t give a factual justification for an ETS. They can’t give a factual justification fo replacement of coal-fired generation.
Nukes are a posssible alternative once fossil fuels become scarce and costly.
Until then we need to stick with coal and its perfectly innocent emissions of CO2.

Greg Atkinson says the climate change debate is taking attention away from much more serious issues.
Well, Greg, what could be more serious than a completely unnecessary tax, that will greatly add to company costs, greatly add to the cost of power, cause companies to either close or move off-shore and therefore cause job losses? What could be more serious than a major loss of jobs? What could be more serious than increased household costs of $4550 pa?

Actually I am not against coal but would like to see Australia look seriously at the nuclear option.

I am however 100% against the ETS which makes no sense to me at all, it is just a sneaky money grab and there is zero chance all the proceeds will be used to fight climate change anyway. In the short term much of it will be used simply to pay down debt that has been racked up as a result of wasteful government spending.

There has been general acknowledgement that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is now in its negative phase and that this means a colder climate for North America.

The following table shows how air temperatures, precipitation, and related effects in North America have been correlated with extreme PDO anomalies. (the format of the table may disappear on copying to this web log

Climate Anomalies Warm Phase PDO Cool Phase PDO
Ocean surface temperatures in the northeastern and tropical Pacific Above average Below average
October-March northwestern North American air temperatures Above average Below average
October-March southeastern U.S. air temperatures Below average Above average
October-March southern U.S./northern Mexico precipitation Above average Below average
October-March northwestern North America and Great Lakes precipitation Below average Above average
Northwestern North America springtime snowpack Below average Above average
Winter and springtime flood risk in the Pacific Northwest Below average Above average

Here is the Abstract:
“Time-series of Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) reconstructed from tree-rings in Western North America is found to have a statistically significant periodicity of 18.6- year period lunar nodal tidal cycle; negative (positive) PDO tends to occur in the period of strong (weak) diurnal tide. In the 3rd and 5th (10th, 11th and 13rd) year after the maximum diurnal tide, mean-PDO takes significant negative (positive) value, suggesting that the Aleutian Low is weak (strong), western-central North Pacific in 30–50N is warm (cool) and equator-eastern rim of the Pacific is cool (warm). This contributes to climate predictability with a time-table from the astronomical tidal cycle.”

The last LNC maximum happened on September 16, 2006. According to Prof Yasuda’s finding the PDO should now be taking a significant negative value, as is being found. The climate consequences are therefore as expected.

There is substantial evidence that the LNC is a significant contributor to our planet’s climate dynamics. I include a carefully written and illustrated explanation of the LNC and review a lot of the published literature about its contribution to climate dynamics in my paper “The Sun’s role in regulating the Earth’s climate dynamics” published in the Journal of Energy and Environment Vol 20 No 1 2009.

Amongst other things I wrote:
“The ocean currents generated by the northward movement of the tidal bulge, in conjunction with the rotation of the Earth through the bulges in the normal manner creating our experience of the tides, brings warmish equatorial water to the Arctic accelerating the warming that had being going on there because of other forms of solar activity as discussed below.
The LNC has maximum effect at higher latitudes, resulting in higher sea levels at these latitudes. It creates tidal currents resulting in diapycnal mixing, bringing the warmer equatorial waters into the Arctic. The LNC is therefore a major determinant of Arctic climate dynamics, influencing long term fluctuations in Arctic ice. As a result, it is a key driver of European climate.”

WUWT in June this year (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/sunspots-today-a-cheshire-cat-new-essay-from-livingston-and-penn aka http://tinyurl.com/ls9zv7 ) published a report by them concluding that, broadly speaking, over the last 15 years the magnetic field strengths of sunspots were decreasing with time independently of the sunspot cycle. A simple linear extrapolation of the magnetic data collected by their special observatory (the McMath-Pierce telescope (see http://nsokp.nso.edu/mp )) suggests that sunspots might largely vanish in five years time. In addition, other scientists report that the solar wind (a large proportion of the Sun’s output of matter in the plasma form) is in a lower energy state than found since space measurements began nearly 40 years ago.

In answer to the question:
Why is a lack of sunspot activity interesting?

Livingston and Penn answer:
“During a period from 1645 to 1715 the Sun entered an extended period of low activity known as the Maunder Minimum. For a time equivalent to several sunspot cycles the Sun displayed few sunspots. Models of the Sun’s irradiance suggest that the solar energy input to the Earth decreased during that epoch, and that this lull in solar activity may explain the low temperatures recorded in Europe during the Little Ice Age”.

EOS is the professional publication of the American Geophysical Union. It is a broadsheet sent every week to AGU members. It always has one feature article, but mainly lists job advertisements and notices about conferences, seminars and the like of interest to AGU members and news of members’ achievements. The feature articles are sometimes about climate change, which are generally supportive of the IPCC dogma.

In EOS of 28 July 2009 there is a very well written feature length article by Livingston and Penn entitled, “Are Sunspots Different During This Sunspot Minimum?”
Livingston and Penn answer yes.

Their central finding is that regardless of the relation to the sunspot cycles, magnetic intensity in sunspots is decreasing and if this continues in the same way as it has for the last 15 years, the Sun will be devoid of sunspots in five years time: overall the Sun’s energetic output will decline significantly inducing another little ice age on the Earth.

Drs. Rachel Howe and Frank Hill, both of the NSO, used long-term observations from the NSO’s Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) facility to detect and track an east-to-west jet stream, known as the “torsional oscillation”, at depths of ~1,000 to 7,000 km below the surface of the Sun. The Sun generates new jet streams near its poles every 11 years; the streams migrate slowly, over a period of 17 years, to the equator, and are associated with the production of sunspots once they reach a critical latitude of 22 degrees.

Howe and Hill found that the stream associated with the new solar cycle has moved sluggishly, taking three years to cover a 10 degree range in latitude compared to two years for the last solar cycle, but has now reached the critical latitude. The current solar minimum has become so long and deep, some scientists have speculated the Sun might enter a long period with no sunspot activity at all. The new result both shows that the Sun’s internal magnetic dynamo continues to operate, and heralds the beginning of a new cycle of solar activity.

“It is exciting to see”, said Dr. Hill, “that just as this sluggish stream reaches the usual active latitude of 22 degrees, a year late, we finally begin to see new groups of sunspots emerging at the new active latitude.” Since the current minimum is now one year longer than usual, Howe and Hill conclude that the extended solar minimum phase may have resulted from the slower migration of the flow.

GONG and its sister instrument SOHO/MDI measure sound waves on the surface of the Sun. Scientists can then use the sound waves to probe structures deep in the interior of the star, in a process analogous to a sonogram in a medical office. “Using the global sound wave inversions, we have been able to reveal the intimate connection between subtle changes in the Sun’s interior and the sunspot cycle on its surface,” said Hill.

“This is an important piece of the solar activity puzzle,” said Dr. Dean Pesnell, of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “It shows how flows inside the Sun are related to the creation of solar activity and how the timing of the solar cycle might be produced. None of the forecasting research groups predicted the current long extended delay in the new cycle. There is a lot more to learn in order to understand how the Sun creates magnetic fields.”

Livingston and Penn conclude their EOS article with these comments:

“Whether this [decline] is an omen of long-term sunspot decline, analogous to the Maunder Minimum, remains to be seen. Other indications of the solar activity cycle suggest that sunspots must return in earnest next year.
Because other indications point to the Sun experiencing an unusual period of minimum solar activity, it is critically important to measure the Sun’s magnetic activity during this unique time.”

Another interesting aspect of Livingston and Penn’s EOS article is that the AGU published it in its professional publication. This suggests to me that the professional societies are returning to practice of true scientific debate that has been suppressed for so long.

It is worth recalling the feature article “Natural antidote to global warming” written by Sir John Maddox, then the editor of Nature and published in Nature on 21 September 1995.

Sir John refered to the extensive research published up to 1995 indicating the Sun-climate relationship and that the Sun was likely to enter into a Maunder Minimum inducing state sometime during the first few decades of the new millennium.

Sir John, an enthusiastic apostle of the IPCC dogma, asked:
“There remains the question of whether the Maunder Minimum will arrive in time to avoid a global carbon tax?”

He answered that on the basis of his reading of the evidence published up till then there was only a small chance. However, he concluded by noting that it is a real possibility and that the moral of his commentary was “a better understanding of the Sun might now have practical value.”

Livingston and Penn and a large number of solar physicists (see, for example, the home page of the grandfather of modern solar physics, Professor Emeritus Cornelius de Jager, here http://www.cdejager.com/about ) would say that now the likelihood of the Earth being seized by Maunder Minimum is now greater that the Earth being seized by a period of global warming.

They would answer Sir John’s question by saying: “Yes, the Maunder Minimum will arrive in time to save the planet from the utterly foolish global carbon tax”.

Some interesting reading here.
I do have a science degree which hardly qualifies me as a climate scientist, but I suppose has helped me to understand much of what I’ve read about the intricacies of the science of climate change and fostered an interest in the topic from an intellectual level. I have been following it articles that scientific American and new scientist started publishing in the early 80s. My own interpretation of those articles suggested that we wouldn’t see temperature rises until much further on. However, that the temp rises seem to have occurred faster than anticipated and this has created the need for people to see that some action is needed and indeed for deniers to pull out all stops to try and confuse the issue.

Everyday I wake up, I indeed hope that some new discovery by “someone” will have either a solution for global warming or indeed prove that it will stop.

It was with some hope that I stumbled across this thread and it mentioned about the non-existence of hot spots. I hadn’t come across this as an essential signature of global warming before. I was interested in reading more about these “hotspots”, but alas the only hits I got were these:

and a few others from denialists that used both nova’s and Evan’s hotspots as “evidence” for their beliefs.

Where/who are the real climate scientists that are debating the relevance of these “hotspots”. No, please don’t throw me a geologist or marine biologist, (does anyone care that Ian Pilmer is on the board of directors for three mining companies?)

I’ve now looked at Nova’s sceptics handbook:

Points 2,3,4 are just plain and simple deceptive representations of data trying to mislead the masses and interpretations that have been refuted again and again by anyone with a basic understanding of the facts.

But I suppose the denialist approach is to keep punching and hit the people that are incapable of sufficient reasoning with what they want to hear and the will get swelling agreement amongst the masses that there is actually some scientific indifference/discourse about global warming, nothing is further from the truth.

Most people here in Australia will say, there is strong evidence for both sides……that is how effective the denialist movement has been here.

Point 1 the hotspots, I’m assuming it’s just the same?
Do I reject the hotspots as just another denialist stunt trying to cloud the issue?.

What evidence will denialists accept that proves CO2 could not be the driving force for global warming? No model is ever going to be acceptable to them, will be rejected on it can’t predict chaos type occurrences in convection patterns etc.
So what will be acceptable? Unfortunately we don’t have another planet available to vary the CO2 content on and see what will happen, so I’m guessing there will be never any evidence that is sufficient for the denialist, convenient.

One can argue about causation and correlation till you are blue in the face, but in the absence of anything else to explain why the temperatures are rising(aliens redirecting IR to earth), its about as convincing as the smoking lobby(heartland institute-reputable research body……rofl) arguing the same point for smoking and lung cancer( also makes one blue in the face)

You must be vary careful not to be misled when bombarded by the constant din of a ‘The sky is falling’ message. While you disqualify yourself as a climate scientist, despite a scientific background, few of the ‘expert’ climate scientists have the kind of science background that would qualify them as capable of understanding the actual science. Those that do tend to be on the side of the AGW skeptics. Please, don’t use the ‘denialists’ term as that only encourages the movement of this issue from one of science to one of religion.

The issue at hand is not whether or not CO2 has any effect, but is the magnitude of that effect large enough to justify the multi trillion dollar expense of banning fossil fuels, moreover; is warming even harmful. I can assure you that a kilometer thick wall of ice covering much of the US and Europe will be a lot more harmful, and there is real evidence that that has occurred before and will occur again. It’s really unfortunate that CO2 isn’t causing significant warming, otherwise, we might have a chance of mitigating the next, inevitable ice age.

This blog arose as a result of a meeting between Senator Fielding and Penny Wong. Fielding was attempting to get an answer to a simple question…how does CO2 drive climate change? The lack of a relevant answer from the Wong camp is a worry. A few days after this meeting Fielding attempted to put the same question to Albert Gore (Nobel Laureate). Gore jetted back to the US without fronting Fielding.

Any reasonably minded observer of these events has to wonder why the promoters of the CO2 causes climate change idea cannot provide evidence based on the basic laws of physics/chemistry to support their position. Reliance on models and correlations to is a poor substitute for basic science.

The major concern is the macho position being adopted by our PM.In any other context his promotion of an idea with so little fundamental evidence to support it would be classified as false advertising.

So it is not about skeptics, denialists or who is or is not qualified to have a say on the issue. The whole ETS/CPRS debacle is being staged on a foundation of emotion and opinion instead of basic facts. This country cannot afford such a luxury.

So any denialists here that will tell anyone what they will accept as evidence that CO2 is causing the warming ?

Yes, I say denialists)(yes, those that trot out stuff like the earth’s temperature has been dropping for the last 10 years etc), those are the people that are either deceiving themselves or actively trying to deceive others. Skeptics, I have no trouble with.

Anyone going to tell us something about the missing hotspots, or link them to a climate scientist, or atmospheric physicist that has published a paper on it for review?

CO2isnotevil: Is that what the link above to George White’s piece is about? Hotspots I haven’t had time to analyse it yet, it’s hardly straight forward. Rather than waste too much time on it and find out White was some crackpot, I googled to find out what there was to know about him.

8) Why is water vapor ignored. This contributes almost 2/3 of surface
warming (CO2 is the other 1/3). Combustion produces twice as many water
vapor molecules than it does CO2 molecules. Burning H2 produces only
water vapor. Of course, I understand that regulating evaporation makes
about as much sense as regulating breathing.

This tells me I am dealing with someone that is either trying to deceive the uneducated or has no idea himself.
Water concentration in the atmosphere would remain basically constant unless the temperature changed no matter how much more is dumped in there by combustion, the extra water will condense(that’s why reputable scientists are worried about the CO2 it has a lower boiling temp than water), of course when the temperature increases due to other forcing, then the water vapor increases and amplifies the effect.
Did george do high school chemistry? Surely not? Basic balancing of equations tells us the ratio of water to carbon dioxide in combustion of fossil fuels can be in many ratios other than 2:1 that we might get when completely combusting methane.

And he also gives us this one:

Furthermore, I have no vested financial interest in
the outcome of any of this, one way or another, except for wanting to avoid
the unnecessary tax burden that will result from bad policy regarding
global warming..

He has spelt out the vested interest that motivates most of the denialists, that their lifestyle will change due to things costing more, their taxes increasing etc. (possibly it will)

Im not refuting anything that George has written in his article yet, its far too complex for me to grasp at one read, I dont know how many people could read that and be convinced of anything, anyone care to summarise it into a more friendly form?

Summary for readers: Notice how people who openly confess they have “no idea” what they are talking about can still write with dripping condescension and decree pompously that others are “deceiving people”?

It’s like an inbuilt form of delusional arrogance. I have no clue, but I can spot a mistake a mile off… Psychic maybe?

Sure…anonymous greame, and thanks for gracing us with your patronizing uninformed commentary. When you feel like understanding a topic before you make vacuous pronouncements, we’ll treat you with respect.

Did it not occur to you that it would be polite and sage to ask about things you don’t understand before issuing edits?

Despite your self acknowledged ignorance, you can keep posting unmoderated right after you apologize for using the word “denialists” (which is name-calling unless you can name a single peer reviewed paper we deny with empirical support for your faith).

“Anyone going to tell us something about the missing hotspots, or link them to a climate scientist, or atmospheric physicist that has published a paper on it for review?”

At the bottom of every single post on this site is this line
The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot. Try clicking on the links. Try clicking on My links and Sources (left hand column). There are dozens of peer reviewed papers.

“The behavior of many AGW advocates is remarkably similar to that of supporters of Aryan Physics in 1930s Germany. They ignore entreaties of scientists who disagree with them. They attempt to stifle publications of research papers, obstruct funds for research that challenges AGW, and refuse public debate on the science of AGW.”

I accidentally deleted the automatic pingback. So I’m just replacing the link. They refer to Climate Money too

Regarding water vapor, the point was that the greenies are gushing over hydrogen power (not methane), which produces water vapor as it’s only combustion product. This would be an anthropomorphic source of water vapor, just like CO2 is from burning fossil fuels. It’s pretty hypocritical to claim anthropomorphic CO2 has a huge effect and anthropomorphic water vapor has no effect when water vapor, on a molar basis, is a more effective GHG. The conclusion you should draw is that neither matters relative to the climate.

My vested interest is the same as everyone else in the world. Your ‘lifestyle’ comment is absurd and makes you’re motivation seem like envy.

Let me summarize my article.

Every test of the AGW hypothesis has failed. The tests my article concentrates on are,

1) The satellite record doesn’t show an average surface temperature increase correlated to CO2 over the last 25 years, when according to AGW theory, should be about 0.8C.

2) AGW predicts that the Earth responds very slowly to change, in order to counter 1). The satellite data unambiguously shows that the Earth responds very quickly (months, not decades) to changes in radiative forcing.

3) To support 2), AGW predicts that the entire ocean must be moved before a temperature increase will manifest. The satellite data also unambiguously shows, based on the relationship between the seasonal variability of the energy entering and leaving the system and ocean temperatures, that the amount of water whose temperature must change is very small, relative to the entire ocean depth.

4) AGW predicts a climate sensitivity, in the form of an amplification factor, of about 9, based on the 3C rise from doubling CO2 causing 3.7 W/m^2 of additional atmospheric absorption. The satellite data also shows that the gain, or amplification factor, of the climate system is about 1.7, which means that doubling CO2 causes about 0.6C of warming.

Anonymous greame, if you’d like to participate in this forum you need to apologise for name-calling and lift your standards.

There is nothing denialists would accept as evidence, but we are not denialists. You can name nothing we deny. If you want us to answer your questions, treat us with basic manners. We are happy to help, but we won’t be bullied by boors.

While you think we are this mythical subhuman class called “denialists” there is nothing we can say to you that you would listen too.

The conversation will not even begin until you act like an adult. Your comment is held in moderation until then.

Graeme. Not bad. You almost apologized. If you have another definition of denialist, then feel free to explain how it is anything other than an insult to a scientist, and how it involves anything other than denying papers (papers that you still can’t name)?

You said you hadn’t come across “hot spots” and asked for info. We gave it, you ignored the links, picked others, came back with irrelevant stuff about combustion from an ignorant blogger while you whined that we did’nt have peer reviewed references which we do. That covers 1, 2 and 3. right. We’re not name-calling, we’re just describing what happened.

And sorry, I was misspelling “greame”. Maybe it was freudian, but it was accidental, and I’ll try not too. OK?

Graeme, we’re holding comment #3, odd how you choose to stay silent instead of just saying, “OK, ‘deniers’ is name-calling. Sorry. I won’t do it.”

You are willfully NOT getting the links. If you went to the pages I suggested you would get active versions of these points below. Yes the pages are written by me, or David, but they link to other sites. Do I have to write them out again personally for you? Isn’t that being a tad precious?

If you read those other links, you’d find the hot-spot called an upper tropospheric temperature trend or other catchy, easy to follow and search for, phrases. You can tell that the CCSP want us to understand this crucial point eh?

Graeme, holding reply #4. Seriously, so you think name-calling is scientific?
There is no point in answering your questions.

You call me names and think I will go out of my way to do your homework and help you “understand” something you apparently don’t want to understand?

You think ad homs against people or institutions who summarize the peer reviewed research would convince anyone that you are really interested in scientific evidence or debate? I don’t jump through hoops for anyone.

Still waiting for that apology, and some sign you can reason.

Jo

PS: Note everyone, it’s always a mistake to honestly answer questions from bullies. The delusional arrogance has to stop before the conversation even starts.

Thank you so much for posting this information and the article of David Evans, whose courage, along with that of Bob Carter and the other two gentlemen of expertise in this subject, in challenging the so-called “prevailing wisdom” on the subject of climate change is a source of inspiration to me. I am an American lawyer interested in this subject because I realize the implications for our common systems of government and our shared interest in liberty. I find myself greatly disturbed over and over again about why our own Senators and Congressmen in this country are not asking the same questions of our bureaucrats (most notably James Hansen). Instead, they arrogantly posture on much like the individuals in the meeting described above. Keep up the good work – you are one tough Aussie!

As we approach crunch day on the issue that triggered this blog we still have no resolution. No answer was given to Fielding’s specific question and it would appear that even Wong’s attempt to divert attention from atmosphere to ocean is somewhat suspect.

The major party politicians appear oblivious to the lack of a factual basis for ETS/CPRS, preferring to see it as a purely political issue to be resolved by deals and negotiation. Perhaps they can negotiate a cure for cancer!The result can be only a set of measures that fail to do anything to assist the community to address climate change.Legislative failure!

How many other legislative failures has our party dogma driven style of democracy delivered?

Crunch day should be cancelled. After the leak of the Hadley CRU emails, many alarming scientists have been exposed for “tricking” up the evidence like Mike (Michael Mann) did with the disgraced hockey stick graph.

I just can’t believe it how many people post spam on sites especially personal blogs just for the sake of some link juice. I need to stay alert all day even with fancy pluggins like spam killer… I dont want to imagine what would happen to my work if I didn’t had this kind of protection.

As an environmentalist I often get attacked over the AGW theory despite the fact I have never supported it as I am a cosmologist first and foremost and cosmology indicates cosmic factors in climate change, not man-made factors.

As someone who lives in a rural area any time I travel to a large city the pollution causes me to have trouble breathing and makes me feel ill, and if it affects me in this way it stands to reason it affects plants and animals similarly and thus pollution is not a good thing in my view and needs to be reduced.

But the theory that this pollution in the form of Co2 is causing climate change on Earth defies most of the observed evidence not just here on Earth but across most of the cosmical bodies of our solar system.

Pluto for example has increased by roughly 2 degrees Celsius over the past few decades despite getting further from the sun over that time period, and although there are a number of hypothetical theories of why this is occurring it is my personal understanding of the electrodynamic nature of our solar system that it is most likely caused by the “solar radiation”(aka ‘the solar wind’ – charged particles emitted from the sun). Such charged particles do not dissipate over distances(electrical charge doesn’t “die” it only transfers from one object to another) so Pluto’s distance from the sun is irrelevant, and unlike the Earth with it’s strong electromagnetic field which blocks most of those particles from reaching the Earth’s inner atmosphere Pluto’s much weaker electromagnetic field allows more of these particles in and causes this warming effect.

Pluto’s small size in theory limits the amount of particles impacting it’s atmosphere so the effects are relatively small as well even though it has a weaker electromagnetic field than Earth. To compare Pluto to Earth would be foolish but the effects that have been observed on Pluto are similar to effects observed here on Earth and as such the underlying causes of the climate change on both bodies seems to be the same in my view. Pluto is just one example of course, most of the cosmic bodies in our solar system are experiencing this climate change(including the moons of many planets, long thought to not have “climates”/atmosphere’s at all).

I doubt many people here are too concerned with cosmology and astrophysics but the reason I mention this is the fact that the AGW climate change model does not take into account any of the numerous cosmical effects on our climate that have now been documented over recent years(thanks to the rapid advancement of the ‘Space Age’ and cosmic exploration), most recently the connection between the 11 year solar cycle of increased and decreased output has been linked to the severity of weather events over more than a century as discovered by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

The amplification of the solar energy’s influence on Earth’s climate could not be explained through existing theories so another solution was suggested – increased solar energy output during maximum sunspot production heats up the tropical stratosphere as sunlight impinges most directly on our planet close to the equator. Other factors are involved but the ultimate conclusion is that the atmosphere warms unevenly, becoming hotter near the equator and cooler in the higher latitudes. This uneven thermal distribution causes increased atmospheric convection, resulting in greater tropical precipitation. Combined with convection, the extra solar energy heats the waters of the Pacific Ocean, where it is said, more clouds form in an area where they are normally absent. The clouds then flow west along the more powerful convection currents, where they increase the effects of the stratospheric heating.

Any climate model must take into account these factors as the only way to get an accurate result from such a model is to make sure the equations that give birth to the model are also accurate. With that being said seeing as we continue to discover new factors that influence our climate any model at this point in time is guaranteed to be inaccurate as it obviously will not incorporate factors we haven’t discovered yet.

Though I do find it somewhat ironic that AGW “science” is essentially what has ultimately led researchers to discover these numerous other cosmical factors that influence our climate and as such the AGW alarmists actually deserve some credit – their BS has led us closer to the truth.

I’m still waiting for all these new discoveries of electrical phenomenon in the cosmos to lead to the mainstream scientific community acknowledging the role of electrical forces in the universe, but much like in the case of climate science the mainstream is anchored in dogma that prevents them from seeing the obvious. Or rather prevents them from stating the obvious as they have already observed the phenomena and thus have ‘seen the obvious’ and are just ignoring it or manipulating it within conventional(misleading) terminology to make it seem to conform to their existing gravitational based theories. In reality most of these recent observations destroy the existing theories completely, but adding epicycles is a favorite past time in conventional science.

Now I’m starting to ramble off topic here so I’ll end this post now. Comments or criticisms are both welcomed and encouraged, provided anyone is still viewing this article or checking comments.

Thanks for the response Mark D., I didn’t notice the date on this piece until just before I posted it and at that point I didn’t want to waste the post so I submitted it anyways. I’ll take a look at more recent threads and see if there is anything to contribute from my end of things.

Jonny Grey, thank you, you are quietly warming to the point of white hot with your sceptical analysis. An Australian long range weather forecaster Inigo Jones now deceased, did forecast weather events clearly through observation of the Sun’s cyclical sunspot activity.

[...] Alas for science, it’s a political and ideological battlefield and not a court of reason. (See this report of a meeting between government advisers and well-credentialed AGW skeptics). “It’s like [...]